United States v. Balmore Portillo-Merino , 546 F. App'x 283 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4312
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BALMORE PORTILLO-MERINO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00018-RLV-DSC-1)
Submitted: November 12, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence W. Hewitt, GUTHRIE, DAVIS, HENDERSON & STATON, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Balmore Portillo-Merino appeals the fifty-seven-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty
plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to reentry of a
deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012). On appeal, Portillo-Merino’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the sentence imposed by the district court was
substantively reasonable. Portillo-Merino was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
Portillo-Merino’s sentence on remand was substantively
reasonable. In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, we must “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. The sentence imposed “must be sufficient,
but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of
sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). If the sentence
imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider
it presumptively reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d
210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a
showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
2
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court
committed no substantive error in imposing the fifty-seven-month
sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.
2010) (providing standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Portillo-Merino, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Portillo-Merino requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Portillo-Merino. 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