United States of America v. Gaspar Dorantes Reyes, a/k/a Gaspar Dorantes-Reyes, a/k/a Gaspar Dorantesreyes,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4520
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GASPAR DORANTES REYES, a/k/a Gaspar Dorantes-Reyes, a/k/a Gaspar
Dorantesreyes, a/k/a Gaspar Reyes, a/k/a Gaspar Reyes Durantes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00641-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2022 Decided: February 18, 2022
Before MOTZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Craig Matthew Principe, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gaspar Dorantes Reyes appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to illegally reentering the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Counsel
for Reyes 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 Reyes’ sentence
is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Reyes has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence
is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines 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. at 49-51.
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at
51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court properly calculated
the Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and considered the § 3553(a) factors. In addition, the court thoroughly explained its
rationale for imposing a within-Guidelines-range sentence and for ordering the sentence to
run consecutively to Reyes’ undischarged state sentence, emphasizing the violent crimes
Reyes committed both before his removal and shortly after his illegal reentry. Finally, we
conclude that Reyes has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines-range sentence.
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 Reyes, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Reyes 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 Reyes.
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 --