US v. Pedro B. Medina

Filing 920080130


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4377 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO B. MEDINA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00241-D) Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 30, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pedro Banegas Medina pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry of an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 (2000). At sentencing, the district court increased Medina's offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3A1.2(c)(1) (2006) and under 3C1.2. Medina challenges both enhancements. Finding no error, we affirm. When reviewing the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d Because USSG 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Medina withdrew his objection to the enhancement under 3C1.2, we review that claim for plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993). We enhancement. find no error the with the United States v. application increase of under either USSG Clearly, six-level 3A1.2(c)(1) was proper as Medina attempted to run the police officer over with his car. The two-level increase under USSG 3C1.2 was proper because Medina drove his car 640 feet after being told to turn it off, jumped over a curb and into a public parking lot. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 2 - 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?