UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DANIEL DAVID GUERRA DELGADO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00082-JAB-1)

Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel David Guerra Delgado pleaded guilty to 

illegally reentering the United States after having previously 

been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district 

court sentenced Delgado to forty-one months of imprisonment, and 

he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether 

the sentence was reasonable. Although Delgado was informed of 

the right to file a supplemental pro se brief he has not done 

so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Counsel questions whether the sentence at the low end 

of the advisory Guidelines range was reasonable. We review a 

sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see 

also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). 

In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural 

error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) 

[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal 

that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines 
3

range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 

(4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 

(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for 

within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record and conclude that the sentence was reasonable.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Delgado, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Delgado 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 Delgado. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED