UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOAN MANZANARES SOLIS, a/k/a Johan Manzanares Solis, a/k/a 

Carlos Torres Castaneda,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joan Manzanares Solis appeals his sentence of fifteen 

months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of a 

deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). Solis’s attorney has filed a 

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

asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal but raising the issue of whether his sentence is 

unreasonable. Solis was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using 

an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. McManus, 734 

F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). First, we consider whether the district 

court committed any significant procedural error, such as 

improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider 

the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), or 

failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. 

Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. 

Ct. 2747 (2013). If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we 

then consider its substantive reasonableness, taking into 

account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 

51. We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated 
3

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. 

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

In sentencing, the district court must first correctly 

calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340. The district court 

is next required to give the parties an opportunity to argue for 

what they believe is an appropriate sentence, and the court must 

consider those arguments in light of the factors set forth in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.

When rendering a sentence, the district court must 

make and place on the record an individualized assessment based 

on the particular facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). In explaining the 

sentence, the “sentencing judge should set forth enough to 

satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal 

decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory 

factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly 

reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record. 

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Solis’s 

sentence is reasonable. The district court properly calculated 

his Guidelines range and reasonably determined a sentence at the 
4

low end of the range, to run consecutively to his six-month

sentence for violating his supervised release on a prior federal 

conviction, was appropriate in this case. The district court 

explained that it sentenced Solis at the low end of his 

Guidelines range based on his arguments. However, the court 

denied his request for a concurrent sentence because it would 

not serve the purposes of sentencing, and a consecutive sentence 

was appropriate based on his repeated offenses and disregard for 

the law. On appeal, Solis contends his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable, because the district court “failed to provide an 

individualized assessment of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors considered in imposing the chosen sentence.” However, 

our review of the record convinces us that the district court 

considered the § 3553(a) factors and rendered an individualized 

assessment based on the particular facts of this case.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in 

writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of 

the United States for further review. If the client requests 

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court 
5

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion 

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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