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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4588 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. ADIEL GUTIERREZ-MONDRAGON, a/k/a Pedro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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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