United States v. Daniel Lozano-Garcia ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL LOZANO-GARCIA, a/k/a Daniel Garcia Lozano,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00334-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2012 Decided: July 13, 2012
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lozano-Garcia appeals from his fifty-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry
by a deported felon. On appeal, Lozano-Garcia contends that the
district court did not provide sufficient individualized
reasoning to support his Guidelines sentence. We affirm.
Because trial counsel argued at sentencing for a lower
sentence than the one Lozano-Garcia received, this issue is
preserved on appeal. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
(4th Cir. 2010). We therefore review under an abuse of
discretion standard. Id. at 581 (“[W]e review the district
court’s sentencing procedure for abuse of discretion, and must
reverse if we find error, unless we can conclude that the error
was harmless.”).
We conclude that the district court’s reasoning was
“adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009). The court
explicitly addressed the basis proffered by Lozano-Garcia for a
lower sentence and explained its reasons for selecting a
sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range. Specifically,
the court discussed the length of Lozano-Garcia’s illegal
residence in the United States as well as the crimes he
committed during that time. Moreover, the court noted that a
Guidelines sentence was appropriate and rejected Lozano-Garcia’s
2
assertion that his life in Mexico and his recognition of the
seriousness of the trouble he was in were sufficient to keep him
in Mexico. See id. at 328 (holding that a district judge must
state in open court the particular reasons for a sentence in
order to satisfy the appellate court that he considered the
parties’ arguments and that he exercised sound authority in
selecting a sentence). We conclude that Lozano-Garcia has not
demonstrated an abuse of discretion, and his sentence was
therefore not procedurally unreasonable.
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