Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SERGIO REYNOSA-ATISUEGO, a/k/a Sergio Reynosa-Ariseaga, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00046-FL-1) Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SERGIO REYNOSA-ATISUEGO, a/k/a Sergio Reynosa-Ariseaga, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00046-FL-1) Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO REYNOSA-ATISUEGO, a/k/a Sergio Reynosa-Ariseaga,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00046-FL-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Reynosa-Atisuego pled guilty without a plea
agreement to unlawful reentry by a previously deported felon, 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to forty-six
months in prison. He now appeals his sentence. We affirm.
Reynosa-Atisuego contends that his sentence is
unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In conducting our review, we first examine
the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. . . .”
Id. We next “consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed . . . ,
[taking] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Id.
In imposing sentence, the district court must provide an
“individualized assessment” based upon the specific facts before
it. United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Here, the district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Reynosa-Atisuego, correctly
calculating the advisory Guidelines range, performing an
individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors as they
2
applied to the facts of the case, and stating in open court the
reasons for the sentence.
We presume that the sentence, which falls within the
advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v.
Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We note that the
district court expressed its reasons for denying Reynosa-
Atisuego’s motion for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines
range. The court stated that the nature of the offense, the
need to deter such conduct, and the need to promote respect for
the law warranted a sentence at the low end of, rather than
below, that range. We conclude that the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a forty-six-month
sentence.
We accordingly affirm. 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
3