US v. Sergio Reynosa-Atisuego

Filing 920100427

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SERGIO REYNOSA-ATISUEGO, a/k/a Sergio Reynosa-Ariseaga, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00046-FL-1)

Submitted:

April 7, 2010

Decided:

April 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Sergio Reynosa-Atisuego pled guilty without a plea

agreement to unlawful reentry by a previously deported felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to forty-six months in prison. He now appeals his sentence. contends that We affirm. sentence is

Reynosa-Atisuego unreasonable.

his

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying Gall v. United States, 552

an abuse-of-discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the sentence for

In conducting our review, we first examine "significant procedural error," including

"failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or Id. failing to adequately

explain the chosen sentence. . . ." substantive reasonableness of the

We next "consider the imposed . . . ,

sentence

[taking] into account the totality of the circumstances." In imposing sentence, the district court must provide

Id. an

"individualized assessment" based upon the specific facts before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, procedural calculating the in district court followed the necessary correctly an they

steps the

sentencing

Reynosa-Atisuego, range,

advisory

Guidelines of the 2

performing as

individualized

assessment

§ 3553(a)

factors

applied to the facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. We presume that the sentence, which falls within the advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. We note that the denying Reynosa-

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). district court expressed its reasons for

Atisuego's motion for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range. The court stated that the nature of the offense, the

need to deter such conduct, and the need to promote respect for the law warranted a sentence at the low end of, rather than below, that range. We conclude that the sentence is

procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a forty-six-month sentence. We accordingly 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