US v. Guillermo Espinosa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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