US v. Alberto Carlos, No. 09-4589 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERTO ROBLES CARLOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00366-JAB-11) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 23, 2010 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alberto Robles Carlos pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count hydrochloride, in (b)(1)(A), of (2006). 846 conspiracy violation At of 21 to distribute U.S.C. sentencing, §§ Carlos cocaine 841(a)(1), received the benefit of the safety valve under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (2008), and was sentenced to ninety months imprisonment, below the statutory minimum of ten years. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for the court s consideration whether the sentence was reasonable. Carlos did not file a pro brief. The Government also did not file a brief. se supplemental We affirm. We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and conclude that Carlos guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court complied with Rule 11. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. We review a sentence both the sentence. assess whether guidelines under an This review requires appellate consideration of procedural Id. reasonableness Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for and substantive reasonableness of a As to procedural reasonableness, this court must the range, district considered court the 2 18 properly calculated U.S.C. 3553(a) § the (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized United explanation States (same). v. Carter, must 564 accompany F.3d 325, every 330 sentence. ); (4th Cir. 2009) An extensive explanation is not required as long as this court is satisfied that the district court has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision making authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)). We both conclude procedurally adequately stated that the district court s and substantively reasonable. its reasons imposing sentence for The a was court ninety-month sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Carlos conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Carlos, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Carlos Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof 3 was served on Carlos. 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
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.
