US v. Luis Cruz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00006-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998912492].. [11-5136]

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00006-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 9, 2012

Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee,
Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Debbie H. Stevens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Luis Cruz pled
guilty to possessing prohibited objects (weapons) while in a
federal

prison,

in

(d)(1)(B) (2006).
Government,
Guidelines

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1791(a)(2),

The district court, without a motion by the

elected
range

to

of

imprisonment

and

imprisonment,

to

vary

twenty-seven

impose
be

federal sentence.

upward

a

served

from

to

Cruz’s

advisory

thirty-three

forty-eight-month

consecutive

to

months’
term

Cruz’s

of

original

The district court also imposed a three-year

term of supervised release.
Counsel for Cruz filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
nonfrivolous appellate issues, but asking that we review the
reasonableness

of

Cruz’s

sentence.

Cruz

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental brief in which he too challenges the reasonableness
of

the

variant

invalid.

For

sentence
the

and

reasons

asserts
that

that

follow,

his

conviction

we

reject

is

these

contentions and affirm the district court’s judgment.
Turning

first

review is familiar:
applying

an

abuse

to

Cruz’s

sentence,

our

standard

of

we review a sentence for reasonableness,
of

discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

standard.

Gall v.

United

When a district court imposes a

sentence that falls outside of the applicable Guidelines range,
2

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 3 of 6

“we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect

to

range.”

the

extent

the

divergence

from

the

sentencing

United States v. Hernandez–Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,

123 (4th Cir. 2007).
due

of

deference

§ 3553(a)

to

the

factors,

variance.”

In conducting this review, we “must give

on

district
a

whole,

court’s

decision

justify

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

that

extent

the

of

the

Thus, even if this court

could have reasonably selected a different sentence from that
which

the

district

court

selected,

“this

‘insufficient

to

justify

reversal

of

United

v.

Pauley,

511

468,

States

F.3d

the

fact

alone

district

474

(4th

is

court.’”

Cir.

2007)

(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
We conclude that Cruz’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable.

The court properly calculated Cruz’s

advisory Guidelines range and considered the parties’ arguments
in favor of a twenty-seven-month sentence.

Our review of the

record persuades us that the district court’s analysis of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors as they applied to
Cruz’s case is adequate to support the upward variant sentence
ultimately imposed. *

We therefore hold that the variant sentence

*

Specifically, the court opined that Cruz’s history of
narcotics offenses and violent crimes, which reflected his
chronic recidivism, as well as the need to promote respect for
(Continued)
3

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 4 of 6

is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

See United

States v. Hill, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 2899395, at *7-*8 (4th Cir.
July 17, 2012) (No. 11-4556) (holding upward variant sentence
that was sixty months’ greater than the defendant’s Guidelines
range was both procedurally and substantively reasonable because
the sentencing court’s “reasoned and reasonable decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence” was
entitled to deference (internal quotation marks omitted)); see
also United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366-67 (4th
Cir.) (holding an upward variant sentence that was six years
longer than the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable
because the district court expressly relied on several of the
§ 3553(a) factors to support the variance), cert. denied, 131 S.
Ct 2946 (2011).
We next consider Cruz’s arguments pertaining to the
validity of his conviction.

Cruz asserts that he would not have

pled guilty had he been properly informed (1) of the district
court’s authority to impose a sentence in excess of the advisory
Guidelines

range

or

(2)

that

he

would

not

be

permitted

to

the law, provide deterrence, and protect the community from any
future crime by Cruz, countenanced a sentence above the
Guidelines range.
The gravity of the offense also justified a
longer sentence, the court explained, because both prison
inmates and guards are frequently injured by the type of
homemade weapons Cruz possessed.

4

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 5 of 6

withdraw his guilty plea in the event that the court rejected
the

Government’s

asserts

that

sentencing

his

attorney

recommendation.

was

Cruz

constitutionally

further

deficient

for

failing to advise him on these matters.
These claims are entirely belied by the record.

The

transcript of Cruz’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing reflects that
Cruz was indeed informed of the court’s authority to impose a
sentence
reject

in

the

excess

of

Government’s

the

advisory

Guidelines

recommendation

as

to

range

the

and

to

appropriate

sentence, and that he would not be permitted to withdraw his
guilty plea if the court so exercised its sentencing discretion.
We therefore reject these arguments to undermine the validity of
Cruz’s

conviction

and

the

ineffective

predicated on the same allegations.

assistance

claim

Lastly, because this is an

Anders appeal, we have independently reviewed the plea colloquy
conducted in this case and discern no prejudicial infirmity in
that

proceeding.

Accordingly,

we

readily

affirm

Cruz’s

conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

This court requires that counsel inform Cruz, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Cruz requests that a petition be filed, but
5

Appeal: 11-5136

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 6 of 6

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.
motion

was

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the

served

on

Cruz.

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

6