United States v. Portillo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELQUIS PORTILLO, a/k/a Gordo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00520-TSE-2)
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John O. Iweanoge, II, IWEANOGE LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Mary K.
Daly, Daniel J. Grooms, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melquis Portillo, a/k/a “Gordo,” was indicted for
conspiracy to distribute cocaine and for numerous firearm
charges. The jury found him guilty of Count 1, conspiracy to
distribute cocaine; Count 2, engaging in the business of dealing
in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010);
Counts 3 and 5, illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (2006); and
Counts 7 and 10, unregistered possession of firearm, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d), 5871 (2006). He was
sentenced to sixty-six months of imprisonment for Counts 1, 3,
5, 7 and 10, and sixty months for Count 2. All sentences were
imposed to run concurrently. On appeal, he raises two issues:
(1) whether his convictions are supported by substantial
evidence; and (2) whether his sentence was reasonable. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find that all of
Portillo’s convictions are supported by substantial evidence.
See United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005)
(discussing substantial evidence); United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We will uphold the jury’s
verdict if there is substantial evidence to support it, and will
2
reverse only in those rare cases “‘where the prosecution’s
failure is clear.’” United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S.
1, 17 (1978)). Thus, these claims fail on appeal.
Second, Portillo alleges that his sentence was not
reasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d
381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the
Sentencing Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a
presumption of reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also
United States v. Raby, 575 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2009). “The
fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded
that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to
justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
“When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines . . . the
explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy because
[G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many ways tailored to
the individual and reflect approximately two decades of close
attention to federal sentencing policy.” United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court sentenced Portillo within a
properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range far below that
3
recommended in Portillo’s presentence report. The court
specifically considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2010) factors, calculated Portillo’s advisory Guidelines
range, and sentenced him within that range. Accordingly, we
also affirm his sentences. 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