United States v. Estrada , 259 F. App'x 581 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4087
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSE GARCIA ESTRADA, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00161-NCT)
    Submitted:   December 3, 2007          Decided:     December 26, 2007
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    On July 6, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jose
    Garcia Estrada, Jr., pled guilty to Count Two of an eight count
    indictment, possession of a firearm during and in relation to a
    drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (West
    2000 and Supp. 2007).        Prior to sentencing, the probation office
    prepared a presentence report, in which it determined Estrada to be
    a career offender.    As Estrada was convicted of violating § 924(c)
    and determined to be a career offender, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 4B1.1(c)(3) provided the applicable advisory guidelines
    range. Based on Estrada’s acceptance of responsibility and a three
    point     reduction   for     that     acceptance,    section   4B1.1(c)(3)
    recommended an advisory range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.
    On January 9, 2007, the district court sentenced Estrada
    to 280 months’ imprisonment.          Estrada timely noted his appeal and
    has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).*     In his Anders brief, Estrada questions whether his
    sentence was reasonable.           We affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    Following United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005),
    a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing.
    The   district   court      must    calculate   the   appropriate       advisory
    *
    Estrada was informed of his right to file                     a    pro   se
    supplemental brief. He has elected not to do so.
    - 2 -
    guidelines range by making any necessary factual findings.            United
    States v. Moreland, 
    437 F.3d 424
    , 432 (4th Cir. 2006).            The court
    should then consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
    conjunction with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West
    2000 and Supp. 2007), and determine an appropriate sentence.
    United States v. Davenport, 
    445 F.3d 366
    , 370 (4th Cir. 2006).
    However, considering the factors in § 3553(a) does not require the
    sentencing court to “robotically tick through” every subsection of
    § 3553(a).    United States v. Montes-Pineda, 
    445 F.3d 375
    , 380 (4th
    Cir. 2006).     On appeal, this court will affirm a sentence that
    falls “within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”
    
    Moreland, 437 F.3d at 433
    . A sentence within a properly calculated
    advisory guideline range is presumed to be reasonable.              Rita v.
    United States, 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    , 2459 (2007).
    Here,   Estrada’s   sentence    was   both   substantively   and
    procedurally reasonable.     Estrada began committing felonies at age
    fourteen and his involvement with crime has continued unabated.
    Estrada is only twenty-seven years old.                However, in thirteen
    years, Estrada has accumulated multiple felony convictions, a
    number of which involve guns and drugs.            Estrada’s sentence, near
    the lower end of his guideline range, appropriately reflects his
    serious criminal history.
    Similarly,    Estrada’s        sentence      was   procedurally
    reasonable.      Prior to sentencing Estrada, the district court
    - 3 -
    properly determined Estrada’s advisory guideline range, heard the
    argument of counsel, and rejected defense counsel’s position that
    Estrada   had       a    drug    addiction.         The   context   surrounding      the
    imposition      of       Estrada’s     sentence      indicates      that   the      court
    considered the arguments and recommendations of counsel and the
    factors   in    §       3553(a).      See    
    Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381
    .
    Accordingly, we determine that the sentence was reasonable.                         
    Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2459
    .
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                             We
    therefore      affirm      the     district   court’s      judgment.       This     court
    requires that counsel inform Estrada, in writing, of the right to
    petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
    If Estrada 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 Estrada.
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-4087

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 581

Judges: King, Gregory, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/26/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024