United States v. Joe Ovalles , 553 F. App'x 315 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4894
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOE OVALLES, a/k/a Jose Ovalles,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00077-HEH-3)
Submitted: January 2, 2014 Decided: January 29, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin F. Brooks, EDWIN F. BROOKS, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney,
Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Ovalles appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment for
conspiracy to traffic contraband cigarettes, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2342(a) (2012), possession of contraband cigarettes, in
violation of § 2342(a), and conspiracy to commit money
laundering, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (2012).
On appeal, Ovalles argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. * We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We assess the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence under the totality of the circumstances. United States
v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
We conclude that Ovalles’ sentence, which was at the
top of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, is
*
Ovalles filed his notice of appeal more than fourteen days
after the district court’s judgment was entered. However,
failure to comply with Rule 4(b)(1)(A) does not deprive this
court of jurisdiction. United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679,
685 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore reach the merits of this
appeal.
2
not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered
and rejected Ovalles’ arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence.
The court concluded that Ovalles was a significant player in the
large-scale trafficking conspiracy with a greater stake in the
venture than his co-defendants, finding that a within-Guidelines
sentence was necessary to provide just punishment and
deterrence, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
consistency among similarly situated individuals. Because the
district court acted well within its considerable discretion in
making these determinations, we conclude that Ovalles has not
rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that this court
attaches to a within-Guidelines 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
this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3