US v. Juan Medrano-Macia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying without prejudice Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999482337-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00016-JAB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999652525]. [14-4778]

Appeal: 14-4778

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO-MACIAS, a/k/a Juan
Macias, a/k/a Juan Antonio Madrano-Mecias,

Antonio

Medrone-

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00016-JAB-1)

Submitted:

July 16, 2015

Decided:

September 2, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Eagles Rand, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4778

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Juan Antonio Medrano-Macias pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement,

to

unlawful

reentry

of

an

aggravated

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012).

felon,

in

The district

court sentenced Medrano-Macias to 70 months’ imprisonment and 3
years’ supervised release.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the

sentence

is

reasonable.

Medrano-Macias

has

not

filed

a

supplemental pro se brief, despite receiving notice of his right
to do so.
We

We affirm.
review

deferential

a

sentence

for

abuse-of-discretion

reasonableness,
standard.”

applying

Gall

v.

“a

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

This review entails appellate

consideration

of

procedural

reasonableness

of

procedural
court

both
the

sentence.

reasonableness,

properly

the

calculated

we
the

Id.

at

consider

and
51.

whether

defendant’s

substantive

In

determining

the

advisory

district
Sentencing

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an

appropriate

(2012)

factors,

sentence.

sentence,
and

considered

sufficiently

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.

the

18

U.S.C.

explained

the

§ 3553(a)
selected

If there are no procedural

errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.”
2

Id.

Appeal: 14-4778

Doc: 42

at 51.

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within

the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted
by

showing

that

the

sentence

is

unreasonable

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

when

measured

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
In this case, the record establishes that Medrano-Macias’
sentence

is

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.

We

reject Medrano-Macias’ claim that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court could have accounted for
the time he served in state custody.

Although the district

court had the discretion to issue a lower sentence, it was not
required

to

do

so,

and

we

district court’s decision.”

must

give

“due

deference

to

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder
of the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds
for appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment

and deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw.

This

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

If Medrano-Macias requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous,

then

counsel

may

renew

3

his

motion

for

leave

to

Appeal: 14-4778

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/02/2015

withdraw from representation.

Pg: 4 of 4

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Medrano-Macias.
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

4