US v. Torres-Moreno

Filing 920070817


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4262 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO TORRES-MORENO, a/k/a Wilson Maldonado Fuentes, a/k/a Manuel De Jesus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00345-JAB) Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Torres-Moreno appeals the seventy-six-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Anders v. Torres-Moreno's California, counsel 386 U.S. filed 738 a brief (1967), pursuant to challenging Torres-Moreno's sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Torres-Moreno was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. Counsel questions whether Torres-Moreno's sentence is too long and suggests that a lower sentence would serve the ends of justice. In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a court still must calculate the applicable guideline range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it "is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable." Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A] sentence within the proper advisory United States v. Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable." - 2 - Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable sentence). The district court sentenced Torres-Moreno only after considering 3553(a) and examining as the sentencing by guidelines In well and the presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines factors, instructed Booker. is addition, within the Torres-Moreno's seventy-six-month sentence twenty-year statutory maximum sentence. See 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2). Finally, neither Torres-Moreno nor the record suggests any information so compelling that it rebuts the presumption that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 We dispense with oral argument because was served on the client. the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the - 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -

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?