UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

NELSON DAVID TORRES-AMPARO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00226-RJC-1)

Submitted: August 9, 2011 Decided: August 19, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, 

INC., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to one count 

of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced 

Torres-Amparo to seventy months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

Torres-Amparo’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,

using an abuse-of-discretion standard. 

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious issue for appeal, but questioning whether 

Torres-Amparo’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

Although Torres-Amparo was informed of his right to file a pro 

se supplemental brief, he has not done so. The Government 

declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.

Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 

F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). The first step in this review 

requires the court to inspect for procedural reasonableness by 

ensuring that the district court committed no significant 

procedural errors, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines 

range or failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)

factors. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th 

Cir. 2010). A reviewing court then considers the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We 
3

presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines 

range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 

(4th Cir. 2007). That presumption may be rebutted by a showing 

“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda

In accordance with 

, 445 F.3d 

375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that 

Torres-Amparo’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. 

Anders

AFFIRMED

, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Torres-Amparo’s conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Torres-Amparo, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Torres-Amparo 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 Torres-Amparo.

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.