Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    United States v. Joan Solis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joan Manzanares Solis's sentence of 15 months in prison for illegal reentry of a deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction. The Court determined that Solis's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range and reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the range. The district court also considered the arguments of both parties and provided an individualized assessment of the sentencing factors. The Court of Appeals found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Joan Solis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joan Manzanares Solis's sentence of 15 months in prison for illegal reentry of a deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction. The Court determined that Solis's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range and reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the range. The district court also considered the arguments of both parties and provided an individualized assessment of the sentencing factors. The Court of Appeals found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-4321

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joan Manzanares Solis's sentence of 15 months in prison for illegal reentry of a deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction. The Court determined that Solis's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range and reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the range. The district court also considered the arguments of both parties and provided an individualized assessment of the sentencing factors. The Court of Appeals found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    24 views5 pages

    United States v. Joan Solis, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Joan Manzanares Solis's sentence of 15 months in prison for illegal reentry of a deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction. The Court determined that Solis's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range and reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the range. The district court also considered the arguments of both parties and provided an individualized assessment of the sentencing factors. The Court of Appeals found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-4321

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOAN MANZANARES SOLIS, a/k/a Johan Manzanares Solis, a/k/a
    Carlos Torres Castaneda,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-1)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2014

    Before DUNCAN
    Circuit Judge.

    and

    FLOYD,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    March 10, 2014

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,


    Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Amy Elizabeth
    Ray,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Asheville,
    North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joan Manzanares Solis appeals his sentence of fifteen
    months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of a
    deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of
    8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012).

    Soliss attorney has filed a

    brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
    appeal

    but

    raising

    unreasonable.

    the

    issue

    of

    whether

    his

    sentence

    is

    Solis was notified of his right to file a pro se

    supplemental brief but has not done so.

    We affirm.

    We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using


    an abuse of discretion standard.

    United States v. McManus, 734

    F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
    U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
    court

    committed

    any

    First, we consider whether the district


    significant

    procedural

    error,

    such

    as

    improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider


    the

    sentencing

    factors

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    failing to adequately explain the sentence.

    (2012),

    or

    United States v.

    Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S.
    Ct. 2747 (2013).
    then

    consider

    If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we


    its

    substantive

    reasonableness,

    account the totality of the circumstances.


    51.

    taking

    into

    Gall, 552 U.S. at

    We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated

    Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.

    United States v.

    Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).


    In sentencing, the district court must first correctly
    calculate the defendants sentencing range under the Sentencing
    Guidelines.

    Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.

    The district court

    is next required to give the parties an opportunity to argue for


    what they believe is an appropriate sentence, and the court must
    consider those arguments in light of the factors set forth in 18
    U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012).
    When

    Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.

    rendering

    sentence,

    the

    district

    court

    must

    make and place on the record an individualized assessment based


    on the particular facts of the case.

    United States v. Carter,

    564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).


    sentence,

    the

    sentencing

    judge

    should

    In explaining the

    set

    forth

    enough

    to

    satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties


    arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
    decisionmaking authority.
    356 (2007).
    factors
    reference

    and

    Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

    While a district court must consider the statutory


    explain
    3553(a)

    its
    or

    sentence,

    discuss

    it

    every

    need
    factor

    not
    on

    explicitly
    the

    record.

    United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that Soliss
    sentence is reasonable.

    The district court properly calculated

    his Guidelines range and reasonably determined a sentence at the


    3

    low end of the range, to run consecutively to his six-month


    sentence for violating his supervised release on a prior federal
    conviction, was appropriate in this case.
    explained

    that

    it

    sentenced

    Solis

    at

    The district court

    the

    Guidelines range based on his arguments.

    low

    end

    of

    his

    However, the court

    denied his request for a concurrent sentence because it would


    not serve the purposes of sentencing, and a consecutive sentence
    was appropriate based on his repeated offenses and disregard for
    the law.

    On appeal, Solis contends his sentence is procedurally

    unreasonable, because the district court failed to provide an


    individualized assessment of the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
    factors considered in imposing the chosen sentence.

    However,

    our review of the record convinces us that the district court


    considered the 3553(a) factors and rendered an individualized
    assessment based on the particular facts of this case.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in


    writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
    the United States for further review.
    that

    petition

    be

    filed,

    but

    counsel

    If the client requests


    believes

    that

    such

    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court

    for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy