UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE REMEDIO GONZALEZ REYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00416-RDB-2)

Submitted: April 9, 2018 Decided: May 3, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Peter Jeffrey Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Remedio Gonzalez Reyes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to 

food stamp fraud, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) (2012), and wire fraud, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). Following a remand for resentencing on the Government’s 

uncontested motion, the district court sentenced Gonzalez Reyes to 12 months and 1 day 

of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in declining to impose 

the same sentence that his codefendant received. Although notified of his right do so, 

Gonzalez Reyes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s 

judgment.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence 

is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the 

defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.

If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for 

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 
3

306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

We discern no procedural error in this case. The district court correctly calculated 

Gonzalez Reyes’ Guidelines range and allowed Gonzalez Reyes to argue for an 

appropriate sentence. Moreover, on resentencing, the court ensured that it did not allow 

Gonzalez Reyes’ gender to influence its sentencing decision.

We further conclude that Gonzalez Reyes has failed to overcome the presumption 

of reasonableness accorded to his below-Guidelines sentence. The district court was 

rightfully concerned that Gonzalez Reyes’ offense conduct harmed the most vulnerable 

members of society. Moreover, the district court reviewed several cases in which similar 

fraud defendants received lengthier sentences. Additionally, the district court did not err 

in considering the immigration consequences that resulted from Gonzalez Reyes’ 

codefendant’s sentence, which frustrated the district court’s intent when it fashioned her 

sentence and stemmed from its desire to sentence the two Defendants in a manner that 

minimized the harm to their minor children.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and 

have found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s 

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Gonzalez Reyes, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gonzalez 

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 Gonzalez Reyes.
4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED