United States v. Alfredo Lorenzo-Morales ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO LORENZO-MORALES, a/k/a Alfredo Laurenco-Morales,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00270-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Lorenzo-Morales (a native and citizen of
Mexico) pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
illegally reentering the United States subsequent to a
conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b) (2006). At sentencing, the district court
adopted the presentence report in its entirety, applying a 16-
level enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), for a prior violent felony
conviction. Lorenzo-Morales’ total offense level, after a
three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, was 21.
With a criminal history category of IV, Lorenzo-Morales’
advisory Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment.
After hearing defense counsel’s arguments for “the lowest
possible sentence the Court would deem fit,” the district court
imposed a 64-month sentence. Lorenzo-Morales appeals, arguing
that his sentence is unreasonable.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.;
see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, this
court considers whether the district court properly calculated
2
the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as
advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2013), factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this
court. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
Lorenzo-Morales does not argue that the district court
committed any procedural error. Rather, he argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal
and good work history, the characteristics and seriousness of
his offense, and that his sentence is greater than necessary to
achieve the goals of § 3553(a). However, the record reveals
that the district court considered each of the factors
identified by Lorenzo-Morales, but nonetheless concluded that a
within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. We find that
Lorenzo-Morales cannot overcome the presumption of
reasonableness accorded his sentence. Therefore, we affirm
Lorenzo-Morales’ sentence. 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