UNITED STATES v. JIMENEZ GARCIA (2020)

Julio Alberto Jimenez-Garcia appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after deportation or removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions, however, whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“We review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ ” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). The district court specifically addressed each of Jimenez-Garcia’s nonfrivolous sentencing arguments, as well as the seriousness of his criminal history and the need for deterrence. Furthermore, the court did not plainly err in imposing a term of supervised release, based on its conclusions that the circumstances of the offense merited special deterrence and protection. Although the court’s discussion was brief, “the context of its explanation made [its conclusions] patently obvious.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 520-21 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we conclude that Jimenez-Garcia’s sentence is 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 Jimenez-Garcia, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jimenez-Garcia 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 Jimenez-Garcia.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.