UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS WILSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

District Judge. (8:10-cr-00997-HMH-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Wilson pled guilty to assault on another 

inmate and was sentenced to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment to 

run consecutively to his undischarged term of imprisonment. On 

appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Wilson’s 

sentence was reasonable. Wilson was advised of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The 

Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.

Counsel does not direct our attention to any specific 

potential errors in Wilson’s sentence. We review Wilson’s 

sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In conducting 

this review, we must first ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the 

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence. Id. at 51. “When imposing a sentence within the 

Guidelines . . . the [district court’s] explanation need not be 

elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves 

are in many ways tailored to the individual and reflect 
3

approximately two decades of close attention to federal 

sentencing policy.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 

271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Once we have determined that the sentence is free of 

procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is 

within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption 

on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. 

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a 

presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates “that 

the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In this case, the district court adopted the advisory 

Guidelines range in the presentence report without objection 

from either party. The court then heard argument from counsel 

and allocution from Wilson as to the appropriate sentence. 

Counsel did not request a specific sentence but suggested that, 

despite the Guidelines’ recommendation of a consecutive 

sentence, the sentence be run concurrently with the sentence 

Wilson was already serving. After considering the § 3553(a) 

factors and the advisory Guidelines, the court concluded that a 

consecutive sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range 
4

adequately addressed the sentencing factors. Neither counsel 

nor Wilson offers any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal 

that the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively 

reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wilson.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Wilson, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Wilson 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 Wilson. 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