United States v. Castenada-Rojas

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERASMO CASTENADA-ROJAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-94)
Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: October 26, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Erasmo Castenada-Rojas pled guilty without the benefit of
a plea agreement to illegal reentry following a conviction for an
aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2000); and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924 (2000). Castenada-Rojas
was sentenced in February 2005, after the decision in United States
v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The district court sentenced
Castenada-Rojas to seventy four months’ imprisonment. He appeals,
claiming his sentence is unreasonable. He alleges the district
court relied exclusively on the sentencing range provided for by
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 5, Pt. A (2004).
After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by
the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still
required to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed
thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. A post-Booker sentence will be
affirmed if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. Further, “while we believe that
the appropriate circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the
guideline range will depend on the facts of individual cases, we
have no reason to doubt that most sentences will continue to fall
- 2 -
within the applicable range.” United States v. White, 405 F.3d
208, 219 (4th Cir. 2005).
Here, the sentencing transcript clearly indicates the
district court imposed a sentence that was both reasonable and
within the statutorily-prescribed range.* It stated that the
sentenced imposed was pursuant to Booker’s directions and remarked
that it “would have imposed a larger sentence but for [defense
counsel’s] comments,” making clear that it did not deem a sentence
below the guidelines range to be appropriate.
Finding no error, 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000), carries an imprisonment term of not more
than twenty years. Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924 (2000), carries an
imprisonment term of not more than ten years.
- 3 -