Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICARDO CENTENO-VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Ricardo Villanueva, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1) Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICARDO CENTENO-VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Ricardo Villanueva, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1) Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICARDO CENTENO-VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Ricardo Villanueva,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Angela
Parrott, Cecilia Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Adam Morris,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Centeno-Villanueva pled guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after having been deported
subsequent to the commission of an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b) (2006). He was sentenced
to seventy-seven months’ imprisonment. Centeno-Villanueva now
appeals, arguing that the district court erred in relying upon
his 1992 conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor
to add three criminal history points to the Sentencing
Guidelines calculation for his current offense. According to
Centeno-Villanueva, he may have left the United States following
his arrests in 2000 or 2004 and reentered again before being
arrested in 2007. If this occurred, his 1992 conviction may
well have preceded Centeno-Villanueva’s most recent reentry into
the United States by more than fifteen years, thus disqualifying
it from consideration in the assessment of Centeno-Villanueva’s
Guidelines range.
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district
court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans,
526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a sentence, the
appellate court must first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate or improperly calculating the Guidelines range. Gall,
2
552 U.S. at 51. District courts are obliged to make factual
determinations supporting the calculation of a defendant’s
advisory guidelines range by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Jeffers,
570 F.3d 557, 570 (4th Cir. 2009).
These factual determinations by the district court are reviewed
for clear error and will be reversed only if this court is “left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Harvey,
532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
According to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 4A1.2(e)(1), for purposes of calculating criminal
history, “[a]ny prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one
year and one month that was imposed within fifteen years of the
defendant’s commencement of the instant offense is counted.”
USSG § 4A1.2(e)(1). The Government concedes that Centeno-
Villanueva’s exact reentry date into the United States is
unknown. However, the uncontested facts in the record are that
Centeno-Villanueva was originally convicted of indecent
liberties in North Carolina in 1992, was subsequently deported,
and was thereafter arrested in North Carolina in 2000, 2004, and
2007. This is strong circumstantial evidence from which the
district court could conclude that Centeno-Villanueva illegally
reentered the United States after 2000 or 2004 and failed to
3
leave the country. See United States v. Levenite,
277 F.3d 454,
468 (4th Cir. 2002).
In the district court, Centeno-Villanueva failed to
offer any evidence to rebut the district court’s fact finding
that he illegally reentered the United States in either 2000 or
2004 and failed to leave after commencing a § 1326 offense. “If
the district court relies on information in the presentence
report (PSR) in making findings, the defendant bears the burden
of establishing that the information relied on by the district
court in making its findings is incorrect; mere objections are
insufficient.” United States v. Randall,
171 F.3d 195, 210-11
(4th Cir. 1999). On appeal, Centeno-Villanueva merely asserts
that he may have left the country, and therefore, the district
court erred. His bare assertion of what may have occurred is
insufficient to establish a “definite and firm conviction” that
the district court committed a mistake in applying three
criminal history points for his 1992 conviction. See Harvey,
532 F.3d at 336-37. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4