US v. Juan Medrano-Macia
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [14-4778]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO-MACIAS, a/k/a Juan
Macias, a/k/a Juan Antonio Madrano-Mecias,
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)
July 16, 2015
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Juan Antonio Medrano-Macias pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012).
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
supplemental pro se brief, despite receiving notice of his right
to do so.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
This review entails appellate
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.
If there are no procedural
errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.”
Pg: 3 of 4
A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within
the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
In this case, the record establishes that Medrano-Macias’
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
district court’s decision.”
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
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
and deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw.
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
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?