US v. David Roa-Bahena

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00022-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020531]. [16-4495]

Appeal: 16-4495

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4495

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ROA-BAHENA, a/k/a David Bahena Roa, a/k/a Roa David
Bahena,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00022-CCE-1)

Submitted:

February 2, 2017

Decided:

February 9, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4495

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Roa-Bahena

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written

agreement, to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012).

The district court sentenced

Roa-Bahena to 37 months in prison, within the range established
by

the

Sentencing

Guidelines,

undischarged state sentence.
the

substantive

to

run

concurrently

with

his

On appeal, Roa-Bahena challenges

reasonableness

of

the

sentence.

Finding

no

error, we affirm.
We

review

deferential

the

reasonableness

abuse-of-discretion

of

a

sentence

standard.”

Gall

“under
v.

a

United

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

Because Roa-Bahena does not

assert

error,

any

substantive

procedural

sentencing

reasonableness

of

the

we

sentence,

account the totality of the circumstances.”

review

only

“tak[ing]
Id. at 51.

the
into
We

presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is substantively reasonable, rebuttable only “by showing
that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of the
district court’s discretion in selecting the within-Guidelinesrange sentence.

Thus, we conclude that Roa-Bahena has failed to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness applied to his sentence.
2

Appeal: 16-4495

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3