UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17 - 4532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JORGE TEXCO

- DORANTES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:16

- cr - 00521

- TMC

- 3 )

Submitted : February 22 , 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jorge Texco

- Dorantes appeals his 120

- month sentence imposed after pleading guilty , without a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions, however, w hether Texco

- Dorantes’ sentence is reasonable. Texco

- Dorantes was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. We review Texco

- Dorantes’ sentence for reasonableness “ ‘ under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion st andard. ’ ” United States v. Blue , 877 F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007) ) . This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive r easonableness of the sentence. Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295 , 306 (4th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court properl y c alculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erro neous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. See Gall , 552 U

. S

. at 49

- 51. Furthermore, Texco

- Dorantes’ sentence i s the statutory minimum , s ee 21 U.S.C. § § 841 (b)(1)(A), 846 , and within the Guidelines range, and Texco

- Dorantes has not rebu tted the presumption of3 reasonableness accorded his within

- Guidelines sentence, see Louthian , 756 F.3d at 306

. Therefore, we conclude that Texco

- Dorantes’ sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have identified no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court . This court requires that counsel inform Texco

- Dorantes , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the Unite d States for further review. If Texco

Dorantes 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 tha t a copy thereof was served on Texco

Dorantes

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED