United States of America v. Adilser Pinzon-Hernandez, a/k/a Adilser Pinzon, a/k/a Adilsey Pinzon, a/k/a Gildardo…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4175
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADILSER PINZON-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Adilser Pinzon, a/k/a
Adilsey Pinzon, a/k/a Gildardo Gonzalez,
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. (3:12-cr-00136-RJC-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2014
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIUM:
Adilser Pinzon-Hernandez pled guilty, without the
benefit of a written plea agreement, to illegally reentering the
United States after having been previously deported subsequent
to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). The court sentenced Pinzon-Hernandez
to one year and one day of 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 the district court plainly erred by
applying the eight-level enhancement for a felony drug
trafficking offense to Pinzon-Hernandez’ sentence. Pinzon-
Hernandez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he did not do so. We affirm.
We review Pinzon-Hernandez’ sentence for
reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A
sentence is procedurally reasonable if, among other factors, the
court properly calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines
range. See id. at 49-51 (listing factors). We conclude that
the district court properly calculated Pinzon-Hernandez’
advisory Guidelines range, as Pinzon-Hernandez’ Texas conviction
for delivery of cocaine is included in the definition of a
felony drug trafficking offense under the Guidelines. U.S.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv) (2011); see
United States v. Marban-Calderon, 631 F.3d 210, 212-13 (5th Cir.
2011) (holding that Texas conviction for delivering controlled
substance categorically qualifies as felony drug trafficking
offense).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Pinzon-Hernandez, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Pinzon-Hernandez 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 Pinzon-Hernandez.
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 --