US v. David Roa-Bahena


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4495 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4495 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ROA-BAHENA, a/k/a David Bahena Roa,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?