UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4408

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUAN CRISTOBAL HERNANDEZ-REYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00044-BR-1)

Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey A. Phipps, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Cristobal Hernandez-Reyes (a native and citizen 

of El Salvador) pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to 

illegally reentering the United States subsequent to a 

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b) (2006). At sentencing, the district court 

applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2010), based on a 

prior conviction for felony cocaine trafficking. After a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility, HernandezReyes’ adjusted Guidelines level was 21. With a criminal 

history category V, his Guidelines range was 70-87 months 

imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence at the top of the 

range, 87 months, followed by three years of supervised release. 

Hernandez-Reyes timely appealed. 

Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, after a 

thorough review of the record and relevant case law, she has 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although informed of 

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Hernandez-Reyes 

has not done so. We affirm.

Our review of the guilty plea hearing discloses that 

the district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hernandez-Reyes’ guilty plea. The 
3

district court ensured that the plea was entered knowingly and 

voluntarily and was supported by an independent factual basis. 

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119–20 (4th 

Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm Hernandez-Reyes’ conviction.

We review Hernandez-Reyes’ 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 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 presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence).
4

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude 

that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. Moreover, Hernandez-Reyes has failed to overcome 

the presumption of reasonableness we accord his withinGuidelines sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Hernandez-Reyes’ conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Hernandez-Reyes, in 

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

United States for further review. If Hernandez-Reyes 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 Hernandez-Reyes.

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