United States v. Guillermo Espinosa , 675 F. App'x 340 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GUILLERMO MONGE ESPINOSA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00068-F-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Guillermo Monge Espinosa pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or
more of cocaine and was sentenced to 236 months’ imprisonment.
Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
brief, finding no meritorious issues, but questioning whether
the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Espinosa was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate
or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range,
treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, this
court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
Espinosa contends that the 236-month sentence is greater
than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
because his criminal history score overrepresented his criminal
history and he therefore should have received a downward
variance sentence. We conclude that Espinosa’s sentence is
substantively reasonable. The district court responded to
defense counsel’s arguments for a downward variance sentence
meaningfully, and explained its chosen sentence. Furthermore,
Espinosa presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Espinosa’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Espinosa, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Espinosa requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Espinosa.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3