UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUVENTINO BENITEZ RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

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

Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00415-JAB-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States

Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juventino Benitez Rodriguez pled guilty to distribution of 

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). He was sentenced to a total term of 134 

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief 

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

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning 

the reasonableness of Rodriguez’s sentence. Although informed 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rodriguez has 

not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review Rodriguez’s sentence for reasonableness “under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. 

McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We 

presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated 

Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. See Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Louthian, 756 

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties 
3

an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered 

the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence 

not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained 

the chosen sentence. Furthermore, Rodriguez’s sentence was 

within the Guidelines range. Therefore, we conclude that 

Rodriguez’s sentence is reasonable. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Rodriguez 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 Rodriguez. 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