US v. Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00099-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998490707] [10-4588]

Download PDF
US v. Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon Doc. 0 Case: 10-4588 Document: 28 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4588 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ADIEL GUTIERREZ-MONDRAGON, a/k/a Pedro Gonzalez Penaloza, a/k/a Adiel Gutierrez, a/k/a Gabriel Gonzalez-Penaloza, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00099-JAB-1) Submitted: December 13, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-4588 Document: 28 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2006). The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) called for a sentencing range of 57 months to 71 months, and GutierrezMondragon received a 60-month sentence. Gutierrez-Mondragon now appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to address all of counsel's sentencing arguments and failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). district Guidelines sentencing A sentence Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 is procedurally calculated the any 18 the reasonable where the court properly defendant's advisory (2006) by the range, considered analyzed U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, arguments presented parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50. In this case, the district court complied with The 3553(a), Gall, and this court's sentencing precedent. district court heard arguments from the parties and permitted Gutierrez-Mondragon to speak on his own behalf. The court explained that, after considering all the factors listed and 2 Case: 10-4588 Document: 28 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 3 arguments made by counsel, it found no reason to depart from the advisory guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we reject GutierrezSee United States v. Mondragon's claim of procedural error. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) ("Generally, an adequate explanation for a Guidelines sentence is provided when the district court indicates that it is resting its decision on the commission's own reasoning . . . and [the court] is typical." (internal . . . the case before quotation marks and alterations omitted)). We accordingly affirm the district court's judgment. 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

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?