US v. Everardo Sanchez, No. 09-4438 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4438 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. EVERARDO MORA SANCHEZ, Defendant Appellant.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. (1:08-cr-00083-NCT-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: July 12, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Everardo months in prison Mora and Sanchez five appeals years of his sentence supervised to release 181 after pleading guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 14.9 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), furtherance (b)(1)(A) of a drug (2006), and trafficking U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). possessing crime, in firearms violation of in 18 Sanchez s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue that Sanchez wishes to raise of whether his sentence is unreasonably high. Sanchez was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). this review requires us to ensure that Gall v. The first step in the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guideline range. F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated 2 guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We district have court reviewed did not the record abuse its and conclude discretion Sanchez, and his sentence is reasonable. in that the sentencing As a result of his guilty plea, Sanchez was subject to a mandatory minimum prison term of ten years on the drug count and a consecutive sixtymonth term on the firearm count. The district court properly determined his advisory guideline range was 121 to 151 months on the drug count plus the sixty months on the firearm count. At sentencing, Sanchez acknowledged he was subject to a mandatory sentence of at least fifteen years, and he requested that the district court exercise its discretion by imposing a sentence at the bottom end of the guideline range on the drug count. The district court agreed, sentencing him to 121 months and the mandatory minimum sixty months. On appeal, Sanchez s attorney notes that his sentence is just one month over the mandatory minimum and acknowledges he is unable to identify any reasons supporting an argument that his sentence is unreasonably high. We likewise conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 3 of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
