US v. Enrique Sanchez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ENRIQUE SARDINETAS SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00030-gec-6)
February 19, 2009
February 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Enrique Sardinetas Sanchez appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine.
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, after a review of the record, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Sanchez has not filed an
informal supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a brief. Sanchez's Anders brief argues that his sentence Finding no error, we affirm.
may not be reasonable.
We review Sanchez's sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 586, 590 (2007). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
The first step in this review requires the
court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range. cert. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). Other significant
procedural errors include "treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately The the
explain the chosen sentence." court then considers the
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. reasonableness of
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. This court presumes that 2 a sentence within a properly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In calculate opportunity appropriate. Cir. 2007). the to sentencing, Guidelines argue the district and
United States v.
court give the
first an deem
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th The court should then consider the 28 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by either party. Id. While a district court
must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, the court correctly calculated the Guidelines United States v.
range and then gave both parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deemed appropriate. court committed no procedural or Thus, the district error, and
Sanchez's sentence, which was within the calculated Guidelines range, is presumptively reasonable. Therefore, we conclude that
there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sanchez's judgment 3 of conviction. This
court requires that counsel inform Sanchez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sanchez 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
was served on Sanchez. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?