US v. Juan Diaz-Rebollar

Filing 920090616

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4708 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN DIAZ-REBOLLAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00012-F-1) Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: June 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hood Hale, Jr., ROBERT H. HALE, JR. & ASSOCIATES, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Eric Evenson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Diaz-Rebollar pled guilty to a single count of illegal reentry of a previously deported felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to 96 months in prison. erred by On appeal, Diaz-Rebollar argues that the district court not permitting him to allocute before announcing sentence. district Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals the court invited Diaz-Rebollar to allocute before the imposition of his sentence. See United States v. McClung, 483 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2007) (allocution is the defendant's right to speak on his own behalf and present evidence that might mitigate his punishment), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2954 (2008). Diaz-Rebollar simply chose not to use that opportunity. Therefore, the district court committed no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would 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?