UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELQUIS PORTILLO, a/k/a Gordo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00520-TSE-2)

Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John O. Iweanoge, II, IWEANOGE LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Mary K. 

Daly, Daniel J. Grooms, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Melquis Portillo, a/k/a “Gordo,” was indicted for 

conspiracy to distribute cocaine and for numerous firearm 

charges. The jury found him guilty of Count 1, conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine; Count 2, engaging in the business of dealing 

in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010); 

Counts 3 and 5, illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (2006); and 

Counts 7 and 10, unregistered possession of firearm, in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d), 5871 (2006). He was 

sentenced to sixty-six months of imprisonment for Counts 1, 3, 

5, 7 and 10, and sixty months for Count 2. All sentences were 

imposed to run concurrently. On appeal, he raises two issues: 

(1) whether his convictions are supported by substantial 

evidence; and (2) whether his sentence was reasonable. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm. 

First, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v. 

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find that all of 

Portillo’s convictions are supported by substantial evidence. 

See United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005)

(discussing substantial evidence); United States v. Burgos, 94 

F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We will uphold the jury’s 

verdict if there is substantial evidence to support it, and will 
3

reverse only in those rare cases “‘where the prosecution’s 

failure is clear.’” United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 

1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 

1, 17 (1978)). Thus, these claims fail on appeal.

Second, Portillo alleges that his sentence was not 

reasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying 

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

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 

381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a 

presumption of reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also

United States v. Raby, 575 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2009). “The 

fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded 

that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to 

justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

“When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines . . . the 

explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy because 

[G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many ways tailored to 

the individual and reflect approximately two decades of close 

attention to federal sentencing policy.” United States v. 

Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal citation 

and quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court sentenced Portillo within a 

properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range far below that 
4

recommended in Portillo’s presentence report. The court 

specifically considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & 

Supp. 2010) factors, calculated Portillo’s advisory Guidelines 

range, and sentenced him within that range. Accordingly, we 

also affirm his sentences. 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