**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **5089**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JORGE MANZANAREZ, a/k/a Fabian Manzanarez, a/k/a Favion Manzanerez, a/k/a Jose Hernandez

- Mansaneras , Defenda nt

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , Chief District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00460

- DCN

- 1 )

Submitted : April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2 , 2011

Before DAVI S , KEENAN, a nd WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant

. Peter Thomas Phillips , Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jorge Manzanarez appeals his conviction and fifty

seven - month sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty plea to possession with intent to distr ibute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C) (2006). Manzanarez’s 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 whether the distri ct court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Manzanarez’s plea , and whether the sentence is reasonable. Manzanarez was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Because Manzanarez did not move in the district court to with draw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “T o establish plain error, [Manzanarez ] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad , 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court fully co mplied with Rule 11, and that Manzanarez’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We review Manzanarez’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The3 first step in this review requires us to ensure that the dist rict court committed no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range’” or “‘failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.’” United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. Our review o f the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mazanarez. The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the parties arguments, made an individualized assessment based on the f acts presented, and adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence. T he district court sentenced Manzanarez within the properly calculated Guidelines range, and Manzanarez has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded that sente nce. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

ap peal. We therefore affirm Manzanarez ’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Manzanarez in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Manzanarez requests that a4 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 Manzanarez . 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 dec isional process.

AFFIRMED