US v. Joan Soli

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999311836].. [13-4321]

Appeal: 13-4321

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/10/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOAN MANZANARES SOLIS, a/k/a Johan Manzanares Solis, a/k/a
Carlos Torres Castaneda,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 10, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth
Ray,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Asheville,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4321

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/10/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Joan Manzanares Solis appeals his sentence of fifteen
months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of a
deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012).

Solis’s attorney has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal

but

raising

unreasonable.

the

issue

of

whether

his

sentence

is

Solis was notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but has not done so.

We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse of discretion standard.

United States v. McManus, 734

F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
court

committed

any

First, we consider whether the district
significant

procedural

error,

such

as

improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider
the

sentencing

factors

under

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

failing to adequately explain the sentence.

(2012),

or

United States v.

Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 2747 (2013).
then

consider

If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we
its

substantive

reasonableness,

account the totality of the circumstances.
51.

taking

into

Gall, 552 U.S. at

We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated

2

Appeal: 13-4321

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/10/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.

United States v.

Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In sentencing, the district court must first correctly
calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing
Guidelines.

Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.

The district court

is next required to give the parties an opportunity to argue for
what they believe is an appropriate sentence, and the court must
consider those arguments in light of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).
When

Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.

rendering

a

sentence,

the

district

court

must

make and place on the record an individualized assessment based
on the particular facts of the case.

United States v. Carter,

564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
sentence,

the

“sentencing

judge

should

In explaining the

set

forth

enough

to

satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.”
356 (2007).
factors
reference

and
§

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

While a district court must consider the statutory
explain
3553(a)

its
or

sentence,

discuss

it

every

need
factor

not
on

explicitly
the

record.

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Solis’s
sentence is reasonable.

The district court properly calculated

his Guidelines range and reasonably determined a sentence at the
3

Appeal: 13-4321

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/10/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

low end of the range, to run consecutively to his six-month
sentence for violating his supervised release on a prior federal
conviction, was appropriate in this case.
explained

that

it

sentenced

Solis

at

The district court

the

Guidelines range based on his arguments.

low

end

of

his

However, the court

denied his request for a concurrent sentence because it would
not serve the purposes of sentencing, and a consecutive sentence
was appropriate based on his repeated offenses and disregard for
the law.

On appeal, Solis contends his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable, because the district court “failed to provide an
individualized assessment of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors considered in imposing the chosen sentence.”

However,

our review of the record convinces us that the district court
considered the § 3553(a) factors and rendered an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

If the client requests
believes

that

such

a

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court

4

Appeal: 13-4321

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/10/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5