UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4645

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRISTIAN VERA-COVARRUVIAS, a/k/a Cristian Vera Covarruvias, a/k/a 

Cristian Vera Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera-Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera 

Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera Cobarrubias,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00105-LCB-1)

Submitted: April 12, 2019 Decided: April 17, 2019

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey A. Carpenter IV, THE LAW OFFICES OF H.A. (ALEC) CARPENTER IV, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cristian Vera-Covarruvias pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to reentry 

of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). He received a 16-month 

sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning 

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. The Defendant did not file a pro se 

supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a response. We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness using an abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court first reviews for significant 

procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider substantive 

reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the selected 

sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the 

circumstances, and if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines range, this 

court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 

295 (4th Cir. 2012).

The district court heard argument from the parties, afforded the Defendant an 

opportunity to allocute, and imposed a sentence of 16 months—within the Sentencing 

Guidelines range. The court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and rendered 

an individualized assessment in this case. The court stated that the sentence was 

sufficiently severe, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the sentencing 
3

objectives of § 3553(a). We conclude that the Defendant has not rebutted the 

presumption of reasonableness and that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

the chosen sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have 

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Vera-Covarruvias’

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Vera-Covarruvias, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. 

If Vera-Covarruvias 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 

Vera-Covarruvias. 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