United States v. Gutierrez-Mondragon , 405 F. App'x 738 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADIEL GUTIERREZ-MONDRAGON, a/k/a Pedro Gonzalez Penaloza,
a/k/a Adiel Gutierrez, a/k/a Gabriel Gonzalez-Penaloza,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00099-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 13, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon pleaded guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after being deported for an
aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2)
(2006). The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) called for
a sentencing range of 57 months to 71 months, and Gutierrez-
Mondragon received a 60-month sentence. Gutierrez-Mondragon now
appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally
unreasonable sentence because it failed to address all of
counsel’s sentencing arguments and failed to provide an adequate
explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable where the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
sentencing factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 49-50.
In this case, the district court complied with
§ 3553(a), Gall, and this court’s sentencing precedent. The
district court heard arguments from the parties and permitted
Gutierrez-Mondragon to speak on his own behalf. The court
explained that, after considering all the factors listed and
2
arguments made by counsel, it found no reason to depart from the
advisory guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we reject Gutierrez-
Mondragon’s claim of procedural error. See United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Generally, an
adequate explanation for a Guidelines sentence is provided when
the district court indicates that it is resting its decision on
the commission’s own reasoning . . . and . . . the case before
[the court] is typical.” (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted)).
We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment.
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