United States v. Leonel Bravo , 452 F. App'x 342 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4173
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LEONEL DAMIAN BRAVO, a/k/a Leonel Damion Bravo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   N. Carlton Tilley,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00039-NCT-1)
    Submitted:   October 19, 2011             Decided:   October 31, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Milton Bays Shoaf, ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North Carolina,
    for Appellant.   Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leonel      Damian       Bravo    pled       guilty    to    possession      with
    intent to distribute marijuana, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2006),
    and carrying and using firearms during and in relation to a drug
    trafficking crime, 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(i) (2006).                                 Bravo
    was sentenced to eleven months for the drug offense and sixty
    months, consecutive, for the firearms offense.                           He now appeals.
    Counsel     has    filed      a   brief       in     accordance          with   Anders     v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising two issues but stating
    that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.                                Bravo was
    advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed
    such a brief.       We affirm.
    Bravo first claims that the evidence was insufficient
    to   support      his   guilty    plea       to    the    firearms       offense.        Upon
    review, we conclude that, by pleading guilty, Bravo waived his
    right to contest the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the
    conviction.       See United States v. Willis, 
    992 F.2d 489
    , 490 (4th
    Cir.   1993)      (“[A]      guilty    plea       constitutes       a     waiver    of    all
    nonjurisdictional defects, including the right to contest the
    factual     merits      of     the     charges.”)          (internal        citation      and
    quotation marks omitted).
    Bravo also contends that his sentence is unreasonable
    because     it     is   disproportionately               high     when     compared      with
    similarly        situated      defendants          who     have     committed       similar
    2
    offenses.       We note that the eleven-month sentence for the drug
    offense falls within Bravo’s advisory Guidelines range of 8-14
    months.     This is strong evidence that there was no sentencing
    disparity.       See United States v. Johnson, 
    445 F.3d 339
    , 343 (4th
    Cir. 2006) (“[B]y devising a recommended sentencing range for
    every type of misconduct and every level of criminal history,
    the Guidelines as a whole embrace ‘the need to avoid unwarranted
    sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who
    have been found guilty of similar conduct.’”).                      Further, Bravo
    received    a    consecutive      sixty-month     sentence    for      the     firearms
    offense,     as        was   statutorily       required.         See      
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(D)(ii).              We   accordingly       reject     his       claim    of
    sentencing disparity.            Further, having considered the record,
    including        the     presentence     investigation        report         and     the
    sentencing       transcript,     we   conclude    that     Bravo’s       sentence     is
    procedurally and substantively reasonable.                   See Gall v. United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 575-6 (4th Cir. 2010).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record for meritorious issues and have found none.                     We therefore
    affirm.     This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
    writing,    of    his    right   to   petition    the    Supreme     Court      of   the
    United States for further review.               If the client requests that a
    petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
    3
    would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
    leave to withdraw from representation.              Counsel’s motion must
    state that a copy was served on the client.                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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4173

Citation Numbers: 452 F. App'x 342

Judges: Diaz, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/31/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023