US v. Edgar Lopez-Cerda

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00307-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998452006] [10-4164]

US v. Edgar Lopez-Cerda

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4164 Document: 23

Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDGAR ANTONIO LOPEZ-CERDA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00307-REP-1) Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010

Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Edward Riley, IV, RILEY & WELLS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4164 Document: 23

Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Edgar Antonio Lopez-Cerda pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of illegal reentry after prior removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) (2006). district court calculated Lopez-Cerda's advisory The

Guidelines

range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009) at zero to six months' imprisonment and imposed a variance sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. challenging the Lopez-Cerda procedural timely and appeals his

sentence,

substantive

reasonableness of the 12-month prison term. * We review the district court's sentence, "whether

inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range," under a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." This review and 51. as

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). entails appellate consideration of of a both the

procedural Id. at

substantive Lopez-Cerda

reasonableness challenges the

sentence. prison

12-month

sentence

procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

We affirm.

We first review a sentence for significant procedural error, including failure to calculate, or improperly calculating the Guidelines
*

range,

treating

the

Guidelines

as

mandatory,

Although Lopez-Cerda has completed serving his term of imprisonment, this appeal is not moot because Lopez-Cerda is still subject to a one-year term of supervised release. 2

Case: 10-4164 Document: 23

Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Page: 3

failing

to

consider

the

factors

under

18

U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

(2006), selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. In

determining whether a sentence is substantively reasonable, we "take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range." 51. Id. at

Although we presume on appeal that a sentence within a

properly-calculated Guidelines range is reasonable, see United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007), we may not presume that a sentence outside the Guidelines range is

unreasonable, see United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we may "consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance." 552 U.S. at 51. more significant court Gall,

"[A] major departure should be supported by a justification need not than a a minor one[,] [b]ut a

district

justify

sentence

outside

the

Guidelines range with a finding of extraordinary circumstances." United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

Even if we would have imposed a different

3

Case: 10-4164 Document: 23

Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Page: 4

sentence,

this

fact

alone

will

not

justify

vacatur

of

the

district court's sentence. We sentence is conclude reasonable.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Lopez-Cerda's district 12-month heard variant counsel's

that The

court

argument on the appropriate sentence, offered Lopez-Cerda the opportunity for allocution, and thoroughly considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, namely, Lopez-Cerda's history and

characteristics, the nature and circumstances of his offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment. We find that the sentence was "selected pursuant to

a reasoned process in accordance with law," and that the reasons relied upon by the district court are plausible and justify the sentence imposed. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,

473-76 (4th Cir. 2007). We accordingly affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with are court oral argument because the in aid facts the the and legal

contentions before the

adequately and argument

presented would not

materials decisional

process. AFFIRMED

4