US v. Yolanda Gonzalez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00264-FDW-6. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999912015].. [15-4442]

Appeal: 15-4442

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YOLANDA GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00264-FDW-6)

Submitted:

August 15, 2016

Decided:

August 17, 2016

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW & SAENGER,
P.A.,
Asheville,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4442

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Yolanda

Gonzalez

appeals

her

sentence

of

240

months’

imprisonment following her convictions for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute heroin and conspiracy to commit money
laundering.
We

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

ordinarily

deferential

review

a

criminal

abuse-of-discretion

sentence

standard.”

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

“under

Gall

v.

a

United

We “first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as

failing

to

calculate

Guidelines

range,

§ 3553(a)

[(2012)]

explain

the

. . .

chosen

(or

improperly

failing

factors,

to

. . .

sentence.”

Id.

calculating)

consider
or

the

failing

at

51.

[18

to
If

the

U.S.C.]

adequately

there

is

no

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive

reasonableness

circumstances.”

under

“the

totality

of

the

Id.

Gonzalez first claims that the district court did not make
factual

findings

necessary

to

support

a

two-level

Guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice.

Sentencing
As Gonzalez

did not object to the enhancement at sentencing, we review this
claim only for plain error.

See United States v. Strieper, 666

F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).

The presentence report concluded

that the enhancement was proper because Gonzalez had testified
untruthfully at trial.

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
2

Appeal: 15-4442

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

§ 3C1.1 & cmt. n.4(F) (2014).

Because neither party disputed

this fact at sentencing, we find that the district court did not
err, let alone plainly so, by accepting the PSR’s conclusion as
a finding of fact.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A).

Gonzalez also contends that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable

because

the

district

court

did

not

adequately

account for the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among

similarly

§ 3553(a)(6).

situated

defendants.

See

18

U.S.C.

Because the district court imposed a sentence

below the properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume that
Gonzalez’s sentence is reasonable.

United States v. Louthian,

756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014).
that

A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing

the

sentence

is

unreasonable

. . . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
The
considered

record
the

reveals
need

to

that
avoid

the

when

measured

against

the

Id.
district

sentence

court

explicitly

disparities.

Indeed,

Gonzalez received a term of imprisonment identical to the term
of the co-conspirator the district court deemed most similar to
her.
the

We therefore conclude that Gonzalez has failed to rebut
presumption

of

reasonableness

we

apply

to

her

below-

Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 15-4442

Doc: 53

contentions

are

Filed: 08/17/2016

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4