US v. Daniel Lozano-Garcia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cr-00334-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998894478].. [11-4973]

Appeal: 11-4973

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4973

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL LOZANO-GARCIA, a/k/a Daniel Garcia Lozano,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00334-HMH-1)

Submitted:

June 29, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 13, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4973

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel

Lozano-Garcia

appeals

from

his

fifty-month

sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry
by a deported felon.
district

court

On appeal, Lozano-Garcia contends that the

did

not

provide

sufficient

reasoning to support his Guidelines sentence.

individualized

We affirm.

Because trial counsel argued at sentencing for a lower
sentence

than

the

one

preserved on appeal.
(4th

Cir.

2010).

discretion

Lozano-Garcia

this

issue

is

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
We

standard.

received,

therefore

Id.

at

review

an

(“[W]e

581

under

abuse

review

the

of

district

court’s sentencing procedure for abuse of discretion, and must
reverse if we find error, unless we can conclude that the error
was harmless.”).
We conclude that the district court’s reasoning was
“adequate

to

permit

‘meaningful

appellate

review.’”

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009).

United
The court

explicitly addressed the basis proffered by Lozano-Garcia for a
lower

sentence

and

explained

its

reasons

for

sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range.
the

court

residence

discussed
in

the

the

United

length
States

committed during that time.

of
as

selecting

Specifically,

Lozano-Garcia’s
well

as

a

the

illegal

crimes

he

Moreover, the court noted that a

Guidelines sentence was appropriate and rejected Lozano-Garcia’s
2

Appeal: 11-4973

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/13/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

assertion that his life in Mexico and his recognition of the
seriousness of the trouble he was in were sufficient to keep him
in Mexico.

See id. at 328 (holding that a district judge must

state in open court the particular reasons for a sentence in
order

to

parties’

satisfy

the

arguments

and

appellate
that

he

court

that

exercised

he

considered

sound

the

authority

in

selecting a sentence).

We conclude that Lozano-Garcia has not

demonstrated

of

an

abuse

discretion,

and

his

sentence

was

therefore not procedurally unreasonable.
Accordingly,

we

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