United States v. Villa-Morales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUCANO VILLA-MORALES, a/k/a Jose Cruz, a/k/a Samuel Sabastian-
Rodriguez, a/k/a Efego Peres-Montufar, a/k/a Omar Cruz Balbuena,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00386-WLO)
Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lucano Villa-Morales was convicted by a jury of possession
of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5) (2000). Villa-Morales was sentenced to twenty-seven
months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Villa-Morales initially contends that the
district court erred in sentencing him based on facts that were
neither admitted nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
sentencing courts are still required to calculate the applicable
advisory guideline range based on appropriate findings of fact.
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). We
have previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be
evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. United States
v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, we conclude the
district court properly determined Villa-Morales’s advisory
guideline range based on facts found by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Villa-Morales also contends that his sentence is
unreasonable. When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range and consider it
in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.
2006). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
- 2 -
sentence is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Sentences within the applicable Guidelines
range may be presumed reasonable. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.
The district court followed the necessary procedural steps
in sentencing Villa-Morales, appropriately treating the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. Furthermore, Villa-Morales’s 27-month sentence, which is
the lowest end of the Guidelines range and below the statutory
maximum, may be presumed reasonable. Thus, we conclude Villa-
Morales has failed to establish that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 -