US v. Marco Flores-Ansencio
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO FLORES-ANSENCIO, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00178-REP-1)
October 21, 2008
October 23, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Marcos Flores-Ansencio pled guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. ' 1326(a) (2000), and was sentenced to twelve months= imprisonment, range a sentence by at the top of the
guideline He and
sentencing it was to We
provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the sentence. affirm.
Flores-Ansencio did not contest the adequacy of the district court=s explanation for his sentence below, thus we
review for plain error his present claim on appeal. States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). sentence for reasonableness, we first
When reviewing a whether the
district court committed any procedural error, such as failing to calculate the guideline range properly, consider the ' 3553(a) factors, or explain the sentence adequately, and then decide whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007).
While a district
court must consider the various ' 3553(a) factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference ' 3553 or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within the guideline range. United States v.
Johnson, 455 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). 2
Here, the district
Court followed the necessary procedural steps. the record that the district court
It is clear from the ' 3553(a)
factors with respect to this defendant and that it considered Flores-Ansencio=s arguments at sentencing. further elaboration by the district court. There was no need for See United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 436 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006). The appeals court must also consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. sentence within a properly Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. guideline range, A as
Flores-Ansencio=s sentence was, may be accorded a presumption of reasonableness. 2462 (2007). See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, Flores-Ansencio does not contest the calculation
of his guideline range, and the district court sentenced him within the properly-calculated range. As noted, the district
court imposed the sentence after considering the arguments at the sentencing hearing, including Flores-Ansencio=s request for leniency, and the ' 3553(a) factors. The district court
expressly rejected his request for leniency, noting that FloresAnsencio had failed for to take advantage of the and numerous that his the was
opportunities previous country
leniency did We
received from his
We district facts
the the the the
court. legal before
because in aid
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?