UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4703

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ALEJANDRO LONGORIA, a/k/a Felix Longoria, a/k/a John, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00505-CMC-02) 

Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: May 15, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Delgado, BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON & DELGADO, LLC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. 

Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Alejandro Longoria pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine 

base, five kilograms or more of powder cocaine, and 100 

kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2006) (Count One), and one count of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006) (Count 

Thirty-Four). Longoria was sentenced to a total term of 292 

months in prison, and he timely appeals. 

 Counsel for Longoria filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether 

the district court properly conducted Longoria’s guilty plea 

hearing and fashioned a reasonable sentence. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm. 

 In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea 

in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of 

the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our 

examination of the record shows that the district court fully 

complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Longoria’s plea was 

knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and supported 

by a factual basis. We therefore find no error. 

2 
 Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Longoria. When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. 

Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range 

may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United 

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). 

 The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Longoria, appropriately treating the 

sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and 

considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the 

relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court found that concurrent 

sentences of 292 months on Count One and 240 months on Count 

Thirty-Four were appropriate in light of the seriousness of the 

offenses, Longoria’s leadership role in the drug organization, 

the need to promote respect for the law and to protect the 

public, and because a substantial amount of drugs were involved. 

Furthermore, Longoria’s sentence for Count One, which is the low 

end of the applicable guidelines range and below the statutory 

3 
4 

maximum of life in prison, is presumed reasonable on appeal. 

Further, while Longoria’s sentence on Count Thirty-Four is the 

statutory maximum, we note that it is below the guidelines 

range. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in sentencing Longoria. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Longoria, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Longoria requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Longoria. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED