US v. Jose Gonzalez Reyes

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00416-RDB-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000287532]. [17-4710]

Appeal: 17-4710

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE REMEDIO GONZALEZ REYES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00416-RDB-2)

Submitted: April 9, 2018

Decided: May 3, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Peter Jeffrey Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-4710

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jose Remedio Gonzalez Reyes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
food stamp fraud, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) (2012), and wire fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). Following a remand for resentencing on the Government’s
uncontested motion, the district court sentenced Gonzalez Reyes to 12 months and 1 day
of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in declining to impose
the same sentence that his codefendant received. Although notified of his right do so,
Gonzalez Reyes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s
judgment.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence
is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. 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. Id. at 49-51.
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

2

Appeal: 17-4710

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/03/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
We discern no procedural error in this case. The district court correctly calculated
Gonzalez Reyes’ Guidelines range and allowed Gonzalez Reyes to argue for an
appropriate sentence. Moreover, on resentencing, the court ensured that it did not allow
Gonzalez Reyes’ gender to influence its sentencing decision.
We further conclude that Gonzalez Reyes has failed to overcome the presumption
of reasonableness accorded to his below-Guidelines sentence. The district court was
rightfully concerned that Gonzalez Reyes’ offense conduct harmed the most vulnerable
members of society. Moreover, the district court reviewed several cases in which similar
fraud defendants received lengthier sentences. Additionally, the district court did not err
in considering the immigration consequences that resulted from Gonzalez Reyes’
codefendant’s sentence, which frustrated the district court’s intent when it fashioned her
sentence and stemmed from its desire to sentence the two Defendants in a manner that
minimized the harm to their minor children.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Gonzalez Reyes, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gonzalez
Reyes 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 Gonzalez Reyes.
3

Appeal: 17-4710

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/03/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

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

4