UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NOEL BARRERA SILVA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:15-cr-00001-JPB-MJA-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linn Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen M. Leddy, 

Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, 

Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Noel Barrera Silva appeals the 78-month, below-Guidelines 

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2012). Silva argues that his sentence is 

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider all 

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and “did not depart 

low enough” from the Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no error, 

we affirm.

“In analyzing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we 

consider the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard, whereby we must defer to the trial court and can 

reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable, even if the 

sentence would not have been the choice of the appellate court.” 

United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). When we review the 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we “take into account 

the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any 

variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Morace, 

594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We apply a presumption of reasonableness to a 

sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range. 

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
3

We reject Silva’s argument that his below-Guidelines 

sentence was substantively unreasonable and greater than 

necessary to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes. After considering 

the district court’s explanation for the chosen sentence and its 

discussion of the § 3553(a) factors it deemed relevant, we find 

that Silva has failed to rebut the appellate presumption of 

reasonableness this court affords his below-Guidelines sentence. 

See Susi, 674 F.3d at 289; see also United States v. DiosdadoStar, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that the 

district court “has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside 

of the Guidelines range” and need only “set forth enough to 

satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its decision (internal 

quotation marks and brackets omitted)); United States v. 

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that, while 

a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain 

its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or 

discuss every single factor on the record). Accordingly, we 

conclude that Silva’s sentence is substantively reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED