United States v. Basurto ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUDITH ARENAS BASURTO, a/k/a LA LA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonard D. Wexler, Senior
District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-03-587)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Tuohy, Brian J. Counihan, PALERMO, PALERMO & TUOHY, P.C.,
Smithtown, New York, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States
Attorney, Jonathan L. Fahey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Ian R. Conner, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Judith Arenas Basurto was convicted by a jury of one
count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and MDMA, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). Basurto was assigned an
offense level of thirty-nine, criminal history category II, and
sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Basurto contends
the district court violated her Sixth Amendment rights when it
enhanced her sentence based on facts that were neither admitted nor
found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
Basurto’s sentence was imposed after United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Therefore, the sentencing court was
required to calculate and consider the guideline range as well as
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). We will
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within
the statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47; see also United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating a sentence
imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is
presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Because the district court properly calculated and considered the
advisory guideline range and weighed the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, we conclude Basurto’s 180-month sentence, which was below
both the statutory maximum and the advisory guideline range, is
reasonable.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Basurto’s sentence. 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 -