UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERNESTO GONZALEZ-TORRES,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00678-PMD-1)

Submitted: February 3, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernesto Gonzalez-Torres appeals the twelve-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of counterfeit credit 

cards, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), (a)(3) (2006). 

Counsel for Gonzalez-Torres filed a brief in this court in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, 

but questioning whether (1) the district court erred in 

accepting Gonzalez-Torres’s guilty plea; and (2) the court 

imposed an unreasonable sentence. Gonzalez-Torres was informed 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not 

done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Because Gonzalez-Torres did not move to withdraw his 

guilty plea in the district court or raise any objections to the 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, the colloquy is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 

389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a 

defendant must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error 

was plain; and (3) the error affected his “substantial rights.” 

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). A defendant’s 

substantial rights are affected if the error “influenced the 

defendant’s decision to plead guilty and impaired his ability to 
3

evaluate with eyes open the direct attendant risks of accepting 

criminal responsibility.” United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 

402-03 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 

also Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532 (holding that a defendant must 

demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the 

error).

A review of the record reveals that the district court 

fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. The court 

provided Gonzalez-Torres, a non-native English speaker, with an 

interpreter, and his answers reflect a thorough understanding of 

the proceeding. The court ensured that Gonzalez-Torres’s plea 

was knowing and voluntary, that he understood the rights he was 

giving up by pleading guilty and the sentence he faced, and that 

he committed the offense to which he pled guilty. Accordingly, 

we hold that the district court did not err in conducting the

plea colloquy.

Because Gonzalez-Torres did not request a different 

sentence than the one ultimately imposed, we review his sentence 

for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-

79 (4th Cir. 2010). We must begin by reviewing the sentence for 

significant procedural error, including such errors 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 
4

on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from 

the Guidelines.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account 

the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 

F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). 

“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must 

make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). Accordingly, a 

sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to 

the particular facts presented and must “state in open court” 

the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. 

The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must be 

“sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that [the district 

court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned 

basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” 

United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). 

When, as here, the district court imposes a withinGuidelines sentence, the district court may “provide a less 

extensive, while still individualized, explanation.” United 

States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. 
5

denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010). That explanation must be 

sufficient to allow for “meaningful appellate review” such that 

we need “not guess at the district court’s rationale.” Carter, 

564 F.3d at 329-30 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, 

where a matter is conceptually simple “and the record makes 

clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and 

arguments,” we do not require an extensive explanation. Rita, 

551 U.S. at 359. 

We conclude that the district court’s sentence was 

both procedurally and substantively reasonable. GonzalezTorres’s sentence is within the applicable Guidelines range. 

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing 

table). The district court used the correct Guidelines range 

and understood that it was advisory. Furthermore, it is 

apparent from the court’s discussion with counsel and GonzalezTorres that it considered both parties’ arguments and had a 

reasoned basis for its decision. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 359.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire 

record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Gonzalez-Torres, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Gonzalez-Torres requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 
6

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-Torres.

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