UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

OMAR LOPEZ-VERDIN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton 

Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00191-NCT-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2010 Decided: April 15, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Omar Lopez-Verdin pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of illegal reentry of an aggravated 

felon after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) 

(2006). The district court sentenced Lopez-Verdin to 78 months’ 

imprisonment. Lopez-Verdin now appeals. Counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that the appeal raises no meritorious grounds but 

questioning whether the 78-month sentence is reasonable. 

Lopez-Verdin was informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so, and the Government 

declined to file a brief. We affirm. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

review. Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads 

us to conclude that the district court substantially complied 

with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting 

Lopez-Verdin’s guilty plea and that Lopez-Verdin’s substantial 

rights were not infringed. Critically, the transcript reveals 

that the district court ensured that the plea was supported by 

an independent factual basis and that Lopez-Verdin entered the 

plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the 

attendant consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 

114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 
3

Turning to Lopez-Verdin’s sentence, we review it under 

an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In conducting this review, we first examine 

the sentence for “significant procedural error, such as 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.” Id. “When rendering a sentence, 

the district court must make an individualized assessment based 

on the facts presented,” applying the “relevant § 3553(a) 

factors to the specific circumstances” of the case and the 

defendant, and “must state in open court the particular reasons 

supporting its chosen sentence.” United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

emphasis omitted). 

If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is within the appropriate 

Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal 

that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 

F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). 
4

Here, the district court correctly calculated the 

advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from the parties on 

the appropriate sentence and allocution from Lopez-Verdin. In 

declining to grant Lopez-Verdin’s request for a downward 

departure on the basis of cultural assimilation, the court 

explained that such departure was not appropriate in light of 

Lopez-Verdin’s age upon entry to the United States, criminal 

record, and knowledge that his return to the United States after 

deportation was prohibited. Further, neither counsel nor LopezVerdin offers any grounds to rebut the presumption that the 

within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. Thus, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

sentencing Lopez-Verdin. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Lopez-Verdin, in 

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

United States for further review. If Lopez-Verdin 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 Lopez-Verdin. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
5

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED