Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 09-4379
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-4)
Submitted:
Decided:
July 6, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Cesar
written
intent
plea
to
Alvarez-Valdovinos
agreement,
distribute
to
one
Alvarez-Valdovinos
count
marijuana,
pled
guilty,
of
in
pursuant
possession
violation
of
to
with
21
the
U.S.C.
Guidelines
range
at
87
to
108
months
Alvarez-Valdovinos
Alvarez-Valdovinos
now
to
appeals.
87
months
Counsel
has
imprisonment.
filed
brief
Alvarez-Valdovinos
We affirm.
sentence,
under
an
abuse-of-discretion
review,
we
must
first
ensure
that
the
standard.
In conducting
district
court
(or
improperly
calculating)
the
Guidelines
range,
U.S.C.]
based
on
3553(a)
clearly
[(2006)]
erroneous
facts,
the
district
or
selecting
failing
Id. at 51.
factors,
court
must
2
make
to
sentence
adequately
When rendering a
an
individualized
assessment
based
on
the
facts
presented,
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks and emphasis omitted), and must adequately explain the
chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to
promote the perception of fair sentencing, Gall, 552 U.S. at
50.
the
courts]
explanation
need
not
be
elaborate
or
of
close
attention
to
federal
sentencing
policy.
United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the
sentence,
circumstances.
tak[ing]
into
account
the
totality
of
the
If the sentence is
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 counsel
and allocution from Alvarez-Valdovinos.
committed
procedural
individualized
error
assessment
in
of
failing
to
Alvarez-Valdovinos
3
provide
an
case,
we
conclude
that
any
such
omission
of
offers
any
reasonableness
did
not
affect
Alvarez-
to
afforded
rebut
the
the
appellate
within-Guidelines
Finally,
case
and
have
found
no
meritorious
issues
for
review.
See
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to
conclude that the district court substantially complied with the
mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Alvarez-Valdovinos guilty plea
and
that
Valdovinos
the
courts
substantial
omissions
rights.
did
not
affect
Critically,
the
Alvareztranscript
reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported
by
an
independent
factual
basis
and
that
Alvarez-Valdovinos
of the consequences.
Accordingly, we discern no
plain error.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment and
deny Alvarez-Valdovinos motion to withdraw counsel.
This court
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED