UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARTIN VILLANUEVA-BALCAZAR,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00378-NCT-1) 

Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., MERRITT, FLEBOTTE, WILSON, WEBB & CARUSO, 

PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills 

Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Martin Villanueva-Balcazar pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute

100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2006). The district court calculated 

Villanueva-Balcazar’s Guidelines range at 87 to 108 months’ 

imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007), and 

sentenced him to 98 months’ imprisonment. 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 the district court erred in accepting 

Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty plea. Villanueva-Balcazar was 

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

he has not done so. We affirm. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

review. Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, Villanueva-Balcazar

did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. 

Accordingly, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is 

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of 

the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district 

court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11 in accepting Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty plea and that
3

the court’s omissions did not affect his substantial rights. 

Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court 

ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis 

and that Villanueva-Balcazar entered the plea knowingly and 

voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences. 

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 

(4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the 

district court’s acceptance of Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty 

plea. 

We review Villanueva-Balcazar’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 calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the 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 rendering a sentence, the 

district court must make an individualized assessment based on 

the facts presented,” applying the “relevant § 3553(a) factors 

to the specific circumstances of the case before it.” United 

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also 
4

“state in open court the particular reasons supporting its 

chosen sentence,” id., but, “[w]hen imposing a sentence within 

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

elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves 

are in many ways tailored to the individual and reflect 

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). 

If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then 

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, this court applies a presumption on appeal 

that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 

F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). 

In this case, the district court correctly calculated 

the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from 

Villanueva-Balcazar’s counsel and allocution from 

Villanueva-Balcazar. The court made an individualized 

assessment of the sentencing factors before it, and counsel and 

Villanueva-Balcazar fail to overcome the appellate presumption 

of reasonableness afforded the within-Guidelines sentence. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in imposing sentence. 
5

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Villanueva-Balcazar, in 

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

United States for further review. If Villanueva-Balcazar

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 

Villanueva-Balcazar. 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