US v. Jorge Albarran-Rivera, No. 11-5072 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5072 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JORGE ALBARRAN-RIVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:10-cr-00095-FL-3) Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jorge Albarran-Rivera pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Albarran-Rivera to 135 months imprisonment. On appeal, Albarran-Rivera s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Albarran-Rivera was Albarran-Rivera s informed of his sentence right supplemental brief, but has not done so. to is file reasonable. a pro se Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We have reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy and find that the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that Albarran-Rivera s plea was knowing and voluntarily entered. We therefore affirm his conviction. We review a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness, standard. applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). Such review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 41; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Albarran-Rivera, appropriately treated the 2 sentencing Guidelines considered the as advisory, applicable properly Guidelines range, calculated and relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. and weighed the We examine the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality of the circumstances. (4th Cir. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 2007). This court accords a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [§ 3553(a)] factors. F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court s consideration of 3553(a) the § factors and imposition of the 135-month sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Albarran- Rivera, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Albarran-Rivera requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 3 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 AlbarranRivera. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
