UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4313

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS GUINTO-MORALES, a/k/a Carlos Guinto Morales, a/k/a 

Alfredo Mendoza-Morales,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00347-WO-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Guinto-Morales pled guilty to illegal reentry by an 

aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). He 

received a Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967) brief, finding no meritorious issues, but questioning 

whether Guinto-Morales’ sentence is substantively reasonable. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying 

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

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural 

errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate 

or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, 

treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain 

its chosen sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally 

reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness, 

considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the 

sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a 

presumption of reasonableness. United States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). 

We have reviewed the record in this case and find that 

Guinto-Morales’ sentence is substantively reasonable. The 

district court meaningfully responded to defense counsel’s 
3

arguments for a sentence at the low end of, or below, the 

Guidelines range, and explained its chosen sentence. 

Furthermore, Guinto-Morales presents no evidence to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness applicable to 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 Guinto-Morales’ conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Guinto-Morales, in writing, 

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

for further review. If Guinto-Morales 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 Guinto-Morales. 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