United States v. Jose Gutierrez-Yanez , 692 F. App'x 702 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE GUTIERREZ-YANEZ, a/k/a Daniel Saucedo-Gutierrez, a/k/a Jose
Gutierrez-Saucedo, a/k/a Daniel Gutierrez-Saucedo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00113-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Randall S.
Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Gutierrez-Yanez appeals his sentence of 140 months in prison after pleading
guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry of an
aggravated felon. The district court sentenced him below his Guidelines range of 151 to
188 months. On appeal, he questions whether his sentence is greater than necessary to
satisfy the sentencing purposes in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm.
When reviewing a criminal sentence, we must first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there is no procedural error, we
review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion, taking into
account the totality of the circumstances. Id. We consider a sentence within or below the
Guidelines range to be presumptively reasonable on appeal. United States v. White, 850
F.3d 667, 674 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 2017 WL 1956227 (U.S. June 12, 2017); United
States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). The presumption can only be rebutted
by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Gutierrez-Yanez’s sentence is
reasonable. He does not identify any procedural error by the district court, and we
discern no such error. Moreover, we conclude that he fails to rebut the presumption that
his sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court properly considered the
parties’ sentencing arguments and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence, with
2
specific consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and Gutierrez-Yanez’s downward variance
request. The district court granted that request and imposed a reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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
3