US v. Edgardo Barron-Espinosa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00259-F-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999610755].. [14-4730]

Appeal: 14-4730

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4730

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDGARDO BARRON-ESPINOSA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00259-F-2)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey A. Phipps, STACEY A. PHIPPS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4730

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Edgardo

Barron-Espinosa

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of cocaine.

The district court sentenced him to 120-months’

imprisonment.

Barron-Espinosa’s

counsel

filed

a

brief

in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but raising a policy argument as to the disparity in
Barron-Espinosa’s sentence compared to that of his co-conspirator
who, counsel argued, had a higher position in the conspiracy than
Barron-Espinosa.

Barron-Espinosa filed a pro se supplemental

brief challenging the drug quantity attributed to

him and the

sentencing enhancements imposed for a supervisory role and for
maintaining a premises for drug trafficking.

Concluding that the

district court did not err, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuseof-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).

the

In

so

doing,

court

examines

the

sentence

for

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2

A district court must conduct

Appeal: 14-4730

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

an “individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
The

district

court

appropriately

determined

that

Barron-

Espinosa was responsible for the distribution of 24 kilograms of
cocaine based on his admissions and his stipulation in the plea
agreement that he was attributable with at least 15 but not more
than 150 kilograms of cocaine.

The court properly increased

Barron-Espinosa’s offense level based on his possession of a
firearm, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(1)
(2013); his supervisory role based on his recruiting two persons
and directing their activities, USSG § 3B1.1(c); and maintaining
a

premises

for

§ 2D1.1(b)(12).
stipulation
acceptance

and
of

the

purpose

of

drug

trafficking,

USSG

Applying the new drug table per the Government’s
reducing

Barron-Espinosa’s

responsibility,

the

offense

district

court

level

for

correctly

computed Barron-Espinosa’s advisory Guidelines range as 168 to 210
months. After considering the Government’s motion and the relevant
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), the court imposed
a 120-month sentence.
Counsel suggests that the sentence imposed is procedurally
unreasonable because it resulted in sentence disparity between
Barron-Espinosa and his co-conspirator.
3

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Appeal: 14-4730

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

(2012) (requiring court to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct”).

Although the court

did not explicitly address this sentencing disparity argument, the
court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed
and did not commit procedural error. See United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (court need not “robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection”).
We conclude that the court adequately explained its reasons
for

the

sentence

imposed

and

that

120-month

unreasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

sentence

is

not

See United States v.

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate
presumption of reasonableness to a sentence imposed within a
properly calculated advisory Guidelines range); see also Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption
of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Barron-Espinosa’s conviction and sentence.

We
This

court requires that counsel inform Barron-Espinosa, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
filed,

but

If Barron-Espinosa requests that a petition be

counsel

believes

that

such

a

petition

would

be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
4

Appeal: 14-4730

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/29/2015

withdraw from representation.

Pg: 5 of 5

Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Barron-Espinosa.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5