United States v. Argueta , 356 F. App'x 647 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDGAR WILSANDER ARGUETA, a/k/a Jonathan E. Gutierrez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00349-REP-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Interim United States Attorney, S.
David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Wilsander Argueta pled guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after previously having been
deported following an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to
forty-eight months of imprisonment. Argueta appeals, alleging
that the district court’s sentence was procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Prior to sentencing the district court advised the
parties it was considering an upward variance because of the
defendant’s repeated violation of immigration laws and violent
criminal activity. At the sentencing hearing, the court adopted
the finding in the presentence report that Argueta’s advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range was 30-37 months. Neither party
objected to this finding. After considering this range, the
factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and
the parties’ arguments, the court imposed a forty-eight-month
sentence. The court provided specific reasons for imposing a
sentence above the advisory range.
Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)
(providing standard). In particular, we find no procedural or
substantive error, in light of how the court calculated
2
Argueta’s sentence and explained its reasons therefor. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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