United States of America v. Zuriel Guzman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZURIEL GUZMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00375-CCE-2)
Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Margaret
McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Zuriel Guzman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and
distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The
district court sentenced Guzman to 144 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Guzman’s sentence is reasonable.
Although informed of his right to do so, Guzman has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
and the Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.
We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally
reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate
sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of
“significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence must be
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Here, the district court correctly calculated Guzman’s advisory Guidelines range,
heard argument from counsel, provided Guzman an opportunity to allocute, considered the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.
Because Guzman has not demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable
when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness accorded his below-Guidelines sentence. Id. We therefore conclude that
Guzman’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Guzman, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Guzman 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 Guzman. 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 of 3 --