UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISMAEL OCEGUEDA-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Ismael Ozequeda-Gonzalez, 

a/k/a Ismael Gonzalez-Ocegueda, a/k/a Arnoldo Pineda-Orkeda, 

a/k/a Mario Hernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00030-NCT-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ismael Ocegueda-Gonzalez pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and the district court 

sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment. 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 Ocegueda-Gonzalez’s sentence is reasonable. 

Ocegueda-Gonzalez was advised of his right to file a supplemental 

brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.

We review a sentence for procedural and substantive 

reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. 

Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining 

whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider whether 

the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that 

were not clearly erroneous, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. Only after 

determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable will we 

consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account 

the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence 
3

that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is 

presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can 

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted). 

Our review of the sentencing transcript revealed no 

procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that OceguedaGonzalez has not rebutted the presumption that his withinGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Ocegueda-Gonzalez, in writing, of his 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Ocegueda-Gonzalez 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 Ocegueda-Gonzalez. 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