US v. Garcia-Flores
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE GARCIA-FLORES, a/k/a Juan PabloseguraPaz, a/k/a Juan Domingo Magadan-Torres, a/k/a Barragan David Flores, a/k/a Sidronio Andrales-Solis, a/k/a Jose Daniel Garcia, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00186-WLO)
June 21, 2007
June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jose Garcia-Flores was sentenced to thirty-two months in prison after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to unlawful re-entry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). On appeal, Garcia-Flores asserts the district court erred in sentencing him under an unconstitutional mandatory guidelines scheme and failed to adequately explain its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors. no error, we affirm. We find that the district court properly applied the federal sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant See Finding
sentencing factors before imposing Garcia-Flores's sentence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, Additionally, we find that the sentence admits was within a properly
546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). imposed, which
calculated guidelines range, was reasonable.
See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding a sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm Garcia-Flores's conviction and sentence. 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
- 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?