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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999652525]. [14-4778]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4778 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO-MACIAS, a/k/a Juan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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?