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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?