UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Balmore Alas,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew 

Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvaro Ezequeil Alas was sentenced to 224 months of 

imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 

fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). His attorney has filed a 

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

stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

nevertheless arguing that the sentence imposed is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court failed to make an 

individualized assessment of the facts presented and failed to 

sufficiently state the reasons for the sentence imposed. Alas 

filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the district court 

plainly erred in imposing a two-level leadership role sentencing 

enhancement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In determining the 

procedural reasonableness of the sentence, we consider whether 

the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any 

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained 

the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 
3

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an 

above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on 

the record an individualized assessment based on the particular 

facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Where, as here, the district court 

imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation may be 

“less extensive, while still individualized.” United States v. 

Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. 

Ct. 2128 (2010). Generally, a court provides an adequate 

explanation for a Guidelines sentence when it indicates that it 

is “rest[ing] [its] decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning 

that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of 

§ 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case, 

and that the judge has found that the case before him is 

typical.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Counsel did not preserve a claim of error, and thus 

our review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 

572, 579-80 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that the district 

court adequately explained its chosen sentence. Moreover, Alas 

fails to show that the lack of a more detailed explanation had a 

prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. United States v. 

Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005). 

We review the district court’s decision to apply a 

sentencing adjustment based on the defendant’s role in the 
4

offense for clear error. United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 

224 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant qualifies for a two-level 

enhancement if he was “an organizer, leader, manager, or 

supervisor in any criminal activity.” U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2010). “Leadership over only one 

other participant is sufficient as long as there is some control 

exercised.” United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th 

Cir. 2003). We conclude that the district court did not clearly 

err in imposing a two-level leadership enhancement. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Alas’ conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Alas, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Alas 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 Alas. 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