United States of America v. Fabian Alvarez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FABIAN ALVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cr-01092-GRA-4)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold M. Vaught, Norwalk, California, for Appellant. Alan
Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Fabian Alvarez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
500 grams or more of cocaine, 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine, and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was
sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, the top of his advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed 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 district court erred by denying
Alvarez’s objections to the drug quantity attributed to him for
sentencing purposes. Although advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, Alvarez has not done so. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Alvarez’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. We assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 346–56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. We find no clear error in the district court’s
calculation of the quantity of drugs attributable to Alvarez for
sentencing purposes. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d
195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). Moreover, Alvarez has failed to
overcome the presumption of reasonableness we accord his within-
Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Alvarez’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Alvarez, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Alvarez requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 Alvarez. 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

-- 4 of 4 --