US v. Balmore Portillo-Merino, No. 13-4312 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4312 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BALMORE PORTILLO-MERINO, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2012). alien, On in violation appeal, of 8 U.S.C. Portillo-Merino s § 1326(a), counsel filed (b)(2) 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 substantively reasonable. by the district court was 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 reasonable. sentence, not we must greater sentencing. on remand was substantively In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a circumstances. but sentence 18 take Id. than into account the totality of the The sentence imposed must be sufficient, necessary, U.S.C. § 3553(a) to satisfy (2012). the If purposes the of sentence imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it presumptively reasonable. 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 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 Upon omitted). (4th Cir. review, we 2006) (internal conclude that the quotation district marks 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. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Portillo-Merino, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but If Portillo-Merino requests that a petition be 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
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.
