Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gutierrez-Mondragon, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported for an aggravated felony. The sentencing guidelines recommended 57-71 months in prison. The defendant received a 60-month sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address all arguments and provide an adequate explanation. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the sentencing factors and arguments presented, and sufficiently explained its selection of a sentence within the guidelines range.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4588

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported for an aggravated felony. The sentencing guidelines recommended 57-71 months in prison. The defendant received a 60-month sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address all arguments and provide an adequate explanation. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the sentencing factors and arguments presented, and sufficiently explained its selection of a sentence within the guidelines range.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    United States v. Gutierrez-Mondragon, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported for an aggravated felony. The sentencing guidelines recommended 57-71 months in prison. The defendant received a 60-month sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address all arguments and provide an adequate explanation. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the sentencing factors and arguments presented, and sufficiently explained its selection of a sentence within the guidelines range.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4588

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ADIEL GUTIERREZ-MONDRAGON, a/k/a Pedro Gonzalez Penaloza,
    a/k/a Adiel Gutierrez, a/k/a Gabriel Gonzalez-Penaloza,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00099-JAB-1)

    Submitted:

    December 13, 2010

    Decided:

    December 23, 2010

    Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North


    Carolina, for Appellant.
    John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United
    States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon pleaded guilty to illegally
    reentering

    the

    United

    States

    after

    being

    deported

    for

    an

    aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2)


    (2006).

    The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) called for

    a sentencing range of 57 months to 71 months, and GutierrezMondragon received a 60-month sentence.

    Gutierrez-Mondragon now

    appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally


    unreasonable

    sentence

    because

    it

    failed

    to

    address

    all

    of

    counsels sentencing arguments and failed to provide an adequate


    explanation for the sentence imposed.

    We affirm.

    We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse


    of discretion standard.
    (2007).
    district

    sentence

    court

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51


    is

    properly

    Guidelines

    range,

    sentencing

    factors,

    procedurally
    calculated

    considered
    analyzed

    reasonable

    the

    where

    defendants

    the

    18

    U.S.C.

    any

    arguments

    the

    advisory

    3553(a)

    presented

    (2006)
    by

    the

    parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.


    at 49-50.
    In

    this

    case,

    the

    district

    court

    complied

    with

    3553(a), Gall, and this courts sentencing precedent.

    The

    district court heard arguments from the parties and permitted


    Gutierrez-Mondragon

    to

    speak

    on

    his

    own

    behalf.

    The

    court

    explained that, after considering all the factors listed and


    2

    arguments made by counsel, it found no reason to depart from the


    advisory guidelines sentence.

    Accordingly, we reject Gutierrez-

    Mondragons claim of procedural error.

    See United States v.

    Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (Generally, an


    adequate explanation for a Guidelines sentence is provided when
    the district court indicates that it is resting its decision on
    the commissions own reasoning . . . and

    . . . the case before

    [the

    quotation

    court]

    is

    typical.

    (internal

    marks

    and

    alterations omitted)).
    We accordingly affirm the district courts judgment.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like