United States v. Torres-Aguilar , 254 F. App'x 271 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JORGE TORRES-AGUILAR, a/k/a Jorge Aguilar
Torres, a/k/a Nectacin Gonzalez-Pineda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-000228-WLO)
Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Scott Coalter, MCKINNEY & JUSTICE, PA, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Torres-Aguilar appeals his 55-month sentence
imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to reentry of an illegal alien
felon. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), brief and Torres-Aguilar has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. The Government elected not to file a brief.
Counsel raises the issue of whether Torres-Aguilar’s sentence was
reasonable. We affirm.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2007), and determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport,
445 F.3d at 370. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). If a
court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range, it must state
its reasons for doing so. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. Because the
district court adequately explained the basis for its sentencing
- 2 -
decision, taking into consideration Torres-Aguilar’s arguments, and
sentenced Torres-Aguilar within the guideline range, we conclude
that the resulting fifty-five month sentence was reasonable. See
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007); Green, 436 F.3d at 457.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Torres-Aguilar’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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 -