US v. Edgar Argueta
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDGAR WILSANDER ARGUETA, a/k/a Jonathan E. Gutierrez, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00349-REP-1)
November 30, 2009
December 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Interim United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Edgar reentering the Wilsander United Argueta pled guilty to illegally been
deported following an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to Argueta appeals, alleging was procedurally and
forty-eight months of imprisonment. that the district court's
substantively unreasonable. affirm. Prior to sentencing
For the reasons that follow, we
parties it was considering an upward variance because of the defendant's repeated violation of immigration laws and violent criminal activity. At the sentencing hearing, the court adopted
the finding in the presentence report that Argueta's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 30-37 months. objected to this finding. Neither party
After considering this range, the
factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and the parties' arguments, the court imposed a forty-eight-month sentence. The court provided specific reasons for imposing a
sentence above the advisory range. Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) In particular, we find no procedural or in light of 2 how the court calculated
(providing standard). substantive error,
Argueta's sentence and explained its reasons therefor. States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
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?