United States v. Eddy Peralta ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4539
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDDY ANTONIO PERALTA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00400-CCE-1)
Submitted: July 31, 2020 Decided: August 7, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eddy Antonio Peralta pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute at least
500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2018).
The district court sentenced Peralta to 165 months’ imprisonment. Peralta’s 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 Peralta’s sentence is reasonable.
Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Peralta has not done so.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). We first examine the sentence
for procedural error, which includes “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2018)]
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Id. at 51. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of
any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a
properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can
only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014)
(internal citation omitted).
2
On appeal, Peralta questions whether the district court imposed a reasonable
sentence. Our review of the record reveals no procedural or substantive errors. The district
court accurately calculated the Guidelines range, accorded the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, and allowed Peralta to speak during allocution. Peralta
moved for a downward variance based on the Guidelines’ disparate treatment of
methamphetamine offenses. The district court thoughtfully considered Peralta’s
arguments, granted a variance, and explained its reasons for not varying to the sentence
Peralta requested while explicitly crediting his policy argument regarding
methamphetamine offenses and his role in the offense. We therefore conclude that
Peralta’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable and that Peralta fails to
rebut that presumption. See Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306.
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 Peralta, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Peralta 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 Peralta.
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