United States v. Arkadio Olivares-Lopez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4591
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARKADIO DEANGEL OLIVARES-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00001-D-1)
Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arkadio Deangel Olivares-Lopez pled guilty to
possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district court
sentenced him to 162 months of imprisonment. On appeal,
Olivares-Lopez contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for
significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When
considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we
take into account the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States,
2
551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Here, Olivares-Lopez was sentenced to a properly
calculated advisory Guidelines range sentence. The district
court listened to the arguments of counsel and to Olivares-Lopez
himself, and expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The
court adequately explained its decision to sentence Olivares-
Lopez within his advisory sentencing range of 135-168 months,
and we find no reason not to apply the presumption of
reasonableness on appeal. See Go, 517 F.3d at 218.
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