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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 .. [16-4300]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
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
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.
If we find the sentence procedurally
considering the totality of the circumstances.
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).
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
meaningfully, and explained its chosen sentence.
reasonableness applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence.
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
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
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
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Espinosa.
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?