US v. Guillermo Espinosa


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00068-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000015676].. [16-4300]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4300 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GUILLERMO MONGE ESPINOSA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:15-cr-00068-F-1) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4300 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Guillermo Monge Espinosa pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and was sentenced to 236 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, finding no meritorious issues, but questioning whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Espinosa was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 We first review for significant procedural errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence. reasonable, we Id. then If we find the sentence procedurally examine substantive considering the totality of the circumstances. at 51. reasonableness, Gall, 552 U.S. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 Appeal: 16-4300 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 Espinosa contends that the 236-month sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because his criminal history score overrepresented his criminal history variance and he sentence. substantively defense therefore We conclude reasonable. counsel’s should have that a Espinosa’s The arguments received district for a court downward sentence is responded to variance meaningfully, and explained its chosen sentence. Espinosa presents no evidence to rebut the downward sentence Furthermore, presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Espinosa’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Espinosa, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Espinosa requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 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 3

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?