UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISRAEL PEREZ GARCIA, a/k/a Esequiel Garcia Guzman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00212-TDS-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2013 Decided: January 18, 2013

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart 

Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Israel Perez Garcia appeals his sentence after 

pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine 

hydrochloride and possession of a firearm during and in relation 

to a drug trafficking crime. Garcia’s attorney has filed a 

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

asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds 

for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court 

erred in denying Garcia’s request for a variance sentence below 

his Guidelines range. Garcia was notified of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure 

that the district court committed no significant procedural 

error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, 

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

failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is 

procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

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

presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated 
3

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. 

Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).

In sentencing, the district court should first 

calculate the Guidelines range and give the parties an 

opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem 

appropriate. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 

216 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court should then consider 

the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the 

sentence requested by either party. Id. When rendering a 

sentence, the district court must make and place on the record 

an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of 

the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. 

In explaining the chosen sentence, the “sentencing 

judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court 

that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned 

basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” 

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a 

district court must consider the statutory factors and explain 

its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the record. 

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Garcia’s 

sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the 

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing 

him. The district court properly calculated Garcia’s Guidelines 
4

range, reasonably determined that a sentence within that range 

was appropriate based on its consideration of the § 3553(a)

factors, and adequately explained its sentencing decision. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in 

writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of 

the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.

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