United States v. Pariag , 232 F. App'x 341 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN BRENT PARIAG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00374-RDB)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew C. White, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON & WHITE, L.L.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Brent Pariag pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000). He was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment, which is
at the bottom of his properly calculated advisory sentencing range
under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Pariag argues
that the court should have granted a downward departure to mitigate
against the collateral consequences of his deportable alien status
and that his sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We find that the district court's sentence, imposed
within the advisory sentencing range and after considering the
factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), was
reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
2006) (stating that a sentence within proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable); United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.) (noting a court must calculate the
advisory Guidelines range and then consider whether that range
serves the factors set forth in § 3553(a)), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 2309 (2006). The district court considered Pariag’s mitigation
arguments and provided cogent reasons on the record for rejecting
them.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -