US v. Miguel Barajas-Garcia


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00256-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491506] [10-4436]

Download PDF
US v. Miguel Barajas-Garcia Doc. 0 Case: 10-4436 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4436 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MIGUEL BARAJAS-GARCIA, a/k/a Filimon Soto-Martinez, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00256-NCT-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-4436 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Miguel Barajas-Garcia appeals the fifty-seven-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) (2006). that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. The court reviews He contends We affirm. sentence for Barajas-Garcia's reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a sentence, this court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly calculating the guidelines range. F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Osborne, 514 "When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented," applying the "relevant [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) [(2006)] factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it." United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also "state in open court the particular reasons supporting satisfy" arguments its this and chosen Court has a sentence" that it and "set forth the enough to has basis "considered for parties' [its] own reasoned exercising legal decisionmaking authority." omitted). Id. (internal quotation marks 2 Case: 10-4436 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 3 If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then review it for substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. "Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the `totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.'" United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Even if this court would have imposed a different sentence, "this fact alone is `insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.'" 51). Barajas-Garcia range was properly does not dispute He that his guidelines that his Id. at 474 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at calculated. argues instead sentence is substantively unreasonable and the district court should have imposed a sentence at the bottom of or below the guideline range because his offense level and his criminal history category overstate the seriousness of his offenses, and because scheme. We imposed apply the an appellate presumption that a sentence range is of the unavailability of the fast track departure within properly calculated guidelines reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence). In rejecting Barajas-Garcia's arguments 3 Case: 10-4436 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 4 for a lesser sentence, the district court thoroughly considered the 3553(a) sentencing factors and determined that they were best served by the imposition of a within-guidelines sentence. Furthermore, the court acknowledged its authority to impose a downward variance sentence, but concluded that, in light of the seriousness respect unlawful for of Barajas-Garcia's law, into his the use prior of offenses, his lack and of his been the different States names, reentry United after having deported, a variance was not warranted. discretion in this determination. We find no abuse of United States v. See Crawford, 18 F.3d 1173, 1174-76, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994) (upholding unlawful reentry sentence where offense level was increased by sixteen and criminal history points by six based on prior felony offense); see also United States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2006) not (holding amount to that lack of fast track departure a scheme does sentencing disparity warranting lower sentence). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a fifty-seven-month sentence was appropriate. We further conclude Accordingly, we that Barajas-Garcia's sentence is reasonable. affirm the sentence. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the contentions 4 Case: 10-4436 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 5 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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?