US v. Edgar Argueta

Filing 920091215

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4014

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)

Submitted:

November 30, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

States

after

previously

having

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

sentence

substantively unreasonable. affirm. Prior to sentencing

For the reasons that follow, we

the

district

court

advised

the

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.

United 2007).

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

3