US v. Alexis Villalta-Morale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00121-RJC-DSC-36. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031067]. Mailed to: Alexis Villalta-Morales # 30106-058 F.C.I. Edgefield PO Box 725 Edgefield, SC 29824. [16-4596]

Appeal: 16-4596

Doc: 35

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXIS VILLALTA-MORALES, a/k/a Rikichi,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00121-RJC-DSC-36)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4596

Doc: 35

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alexis Villalta-Morales pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering
enterprise, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963(a) (2012), attempted murder
in aid of a racketeering enterprise, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (2012),
and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in relation to a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).
sentenced

Villalta-Morales

below

his

The district court
advisory

Guidelines range to 204 months’ imprisonment.
Anders

v.

California,

386

U.S.

738

Sentencing

In accordance with

(1967),

Villalta-Morales’

counsel has filed a brief certifying there are no meritorious
grounds

for

appeal,

but

sentence is reasonable.
supplemental brief.
We

review

a

questioning

whether

Villalta-Morales has filed a pro se

We affirm the district court’s judgment.
sentence

for

reasonableness,

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
552

U.S.

38,

consideration

Villalta-Morales’

41

(2007).

of

both

This
the

“a

Gall v. United States,

review

entails

procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.

applying

Id. at 51.

and

appellate
substantive

In determining

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate
sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
2

Gall, 552 U.S. at

Appeal: 16-4596

Doc: 35

49-51.

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality
of the circumstances.”

Id. at 51.

A sentence is presumptively

reasonable if it is within or below the Guidelines range, and this
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable
factors.”

when

measured

against

the

18

U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.

2014).
In this case, the record establishes that Villalta-Morales’
sentence

is

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.

In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this
case and Villalta-Morales’ pro se supplemental brief and have found
no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Villalta-Morales, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Villalta-Morales
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 Villalta-Morales.
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