US v. Pariag

Filing 920070710

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4199 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN BRENT PARIAG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00374-RDB) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew C. White, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON & WHITE, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Brent Pariag pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment, which is at the bottom of his properly calculated advisory sentencing range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Pariag argues that the court should have granted a downward departure to mitigate against the collateral consequences of his deportable alien status and that his sentence is unreasonable. follow, we affirm. We find that the district court's sentence, imposed within the advisory sentencing range and after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), was reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. For the reasons that 2006) (stating that a sentence within proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.) (noting a court must calculate the advisory Guidelines range and then consider whether that range serves the factors set forth in 3553(a)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). The district court considered Pariag's mitigation arguments and provided cogent reasons on the record for rejecting them. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal - 2 - contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?