US v. Carlos Torres, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS TORRES, a/k/a Sombra,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00107-RJC-DLH-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Ann Magee Thompkins, United States Attorney, Kevin

Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North

Carolina; Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant

United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carlos Torres pled guilty to robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).

The district court sentenced him to a total of 120 months imprisonment. Torres' 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 Torres' sentence was reasonable. Torres was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We have reviewed Torres' sentence and conclude that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).

The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Torres, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of Torres' individual characteristics and history. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. 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 Torres, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Torres 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 Torres. 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