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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-4495]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DAVID ROA-BAHENA, a/k/a David Bahena Roa, a/k/a Roa David
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)
February 2, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
undischarged state sentence.
On appeal, Roa-Bahena challenges
error, we affirm.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Because Roa-Bahena does not
account the totality of the circumstances.”
Id. at 51.
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.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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?