UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5089

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,

Defendant - 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 DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 fiftyseven-month sentence imposed by the district court following a 

guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute 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 district 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 withdraw 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). “To 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 complied 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). The 
3

first step in this review requires us to ensure that the 

district 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 of 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 facts presented, and 

adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence. The 

district court sentenced Manzanarez within the properly 

calculated Guidelines range, and Manzanarez has failed to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness accorded that sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. 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 a 
4

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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED