United States v. Jose Solis-Flores , 707 F. App'x 171 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-4504
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE LUIS SOLIS-FLORES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:16-cr-00611-TMC-1)
    Submitted: December 21, 2017                                Decided: December 27, 2017
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellant. Beth Drake, United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant
    United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Luis Solis-Flores appeals the 70-month sentence that the district court
    imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation
    of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2012). On appeal, Solis-Flores contends that the district
    court erred in imposing the within-Guidelines-range sentence. Solis-Flores provides no
    argument in support of his assertion and has therefore waived appellate review of this
    issue. See Hensley on behalf of N.C. v. Price, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-1294, 
    2017 WL 5711029
    , at *4 & n.5 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017) (“[A] party must do more than take a
    passing shot at an issue to properly preserve it for appellate review.” (alterations and
    internal quotation marks omitted)); Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 
    440 F.3d 648
    , 653 n.7
    (4th Cir. 2006) (concluding that single, conclusory remark is insufficient to preserve issue
    for appellate review); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-4504

Citation Numbers: 707 F. App'x 171

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 12/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024