US v. Ballestero
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT BALLESTERO, a/k/a Rico, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00183)
September 29, 2006
October 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tim C. Carrico, CARRICO LAW OFFICES, LC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Robert Ballestero pled guilty to distributing crack
cocaine (Count Three) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count Four) and On was sentenced he to eighty-seven that the months of
improperly gave him six criminal history points for two Michigan convictions: (1) breaking without entering, and (2) receiving and concealing stolen property, which occurred more than fifteen years prior to the commencement of his instant offenses in violation of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(e) (2005). reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a district court's factual findings concerning sentencing factors for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. France, 164 F.3d 203, 209 (4th Cir. 1998). For the
We find no error in the district court's conclusion that Ballestero was serving sentences of imprisonment for these two state offenses during the relevant fifteen-year period as discussed in USSG § 4A1.2, comment. (n.2). Accordingly, we affirm.
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.
- 2 -
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?