United States of America v. Rommel Ernesto Duarte-Juarez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROMMEL ERNESTO DUARTE-JUAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:13-cr-00278-JMC-1)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rommel Ernesto Duarte-Juarez pled guilty without a
plea agreement to one count of assaulting, resisting or impeding
certain officers or employees, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111
(2012), and was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison.
Duarte-Juarez’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 the district court plainly erred when it
imposed Duarte-Juarez’s sentence. Duarte-Juarez has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right
to do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive
brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). This review requires consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
2010). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error,
we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court properly calculated
Duarte-Juarez’s Guidelines range, denied the Government’s motion
for a downward variant sentence, treated the Guidelines as
advisory, and considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors.
Moreover, the record establishes that the district court based
Duarte-Juarez’s sentence on its “individualized assessment” of
the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we conclude that Duarte-
Juarez’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. Thus, in the
absence of any evidence or argument suggesting that the sentence
is substantively unreasonable, we presume on appeal that Duarte-
Juarez’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Susi, 674
F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Duarte-Juarez, in writing, of the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Duarte-Juarez 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 Duarte-Juarez. 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

-- 4 of 4 --