Court Opinion

ID: 9945984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:44.11153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:12.119677
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4407      Doc: 31         Filed: 02/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4407

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ZURIEL GUZMAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00375-CCE-2)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Margaret
        McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4407      Doc: 31          Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Zuriel Guzman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

        distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and

        distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The

        district court sentenced Guzman to 144 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Guzman’s sentence is reasonable.

        Although informed of his right to do so, Guzman has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,

        and the Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United

        States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally

        reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

        advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate

        sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the

        selected sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of

        “significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]

        into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the

        Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence must be

        “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing.

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).     “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4407      Doc: 31           Filed: 02/27/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

        Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian,

        756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               Here, the district court correctly calculated Guzman’s advisory Guidelines range,

        heard argument from counsel, provided Guzman an opportunity to allocute, considered the

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.

        Because Guzman has not demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable

        when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption

        of reasonableness accorded his below-Guidelines sentence. Id. We therefore conclude that

        Guzman’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Guzman, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Guzman 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 Guzman. 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

                                                      3