UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAVIER RAMOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

John George Guise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Javier Ramos pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. 

He noted a timely appeal. Ramos’ counsel has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but 

questioning whether the district court erred at sentencing in 

denying Ramos’ request for a downward variance from the 

Sentencing Guidelines range of 70-87 months. Although informed 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Ramos has not 

done so. We affirm.

We review Ramos’ sentence for reasonableness, applying 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id. We assess whether the district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors 

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments 

presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Id. at 49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 

F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural 

error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether 
3

the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that 

the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 

3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 

(4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines 

range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (upholding appellate 

presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the 

sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. 

Moreover, Ramos has failed to overcome the presumption of 

reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Ramos’ conviction and sentence. This court 

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

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Ramos 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 Ramos.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED