Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 120-month sentence of Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The district court properly calculated Barron-Espinosa's sentencing guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. While counsel argued the sentence created unwarranted disparity compared to a co-conspirator, the appeals court found no procedural error in the district court's explanation of the sentence. The 120-month sentence was found to be reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    58 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 120-month sentence of Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The district court properly calculated Barron-Espinosa's sentencing guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. While counsel argued the sentence created unwarranted disparity compared to a co-conspirator, the appeals court found no procedural error in the district court's explanation of the sentence. The 120-month sentence was found to be reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4730

    Original Title

    United States v. Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, 4th Cir. (2015)

    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 the 120-month sentence of Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The district court properly calculated Barron-Espinosa's sentencing guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. While counsel argued the sentence created unwarranted disparity compared to a co-conspirator, the appeals court found no procedural error in the district court's explanation of the sentence. The 120-month sentence was found to be reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

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

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 120-month sentence of Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The district court properly calculated Barron-Espinosa's sentencing guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. While counsel argued the sentence created unwarranted disparity compared to a co-conspirator, the appeals court found no procedural error in the district court's explanation of the sentence. The 120-month sentence was found to be reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

    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. 14-4730

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDGARDO BARRON-ESPINOSA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:13-cr-00259-F-2)

    Submitted:

    June 25, 2015

    Decided:

    June 29, 2015

    Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stacey A. Phipps, STACEY A. PHIPPS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., Raleigh,


    North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edgardo

    Barron-Espinosa

    pled

    guilty

    to

    conspiracy

    to

    distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more


    of cocaine.

    The district court sentenced him to 120-months

    imprisonment.

    Barron-Espinosas

    counsel

    filed

    brief

    in

    accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating


    that, in counsels view, there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal, but raising a policy argument as to the disparity in
    Barron-Espinosas sentence compared to that of his co-conspirator
    who, counsel argued, had a higher position in the conspiracy than
    Barron-Espinosa.

    Barron-Espinosa filed a pro se supplemental

    brief challenging the drug quantity attributed to

    him and the

    sentencing enhancements imposed for a supervisory role and for


    maintaining a premises for drug trafficking.

    Concluding that the

    district court did not err, we affirm.


    We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuseof-discretion standard.

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

    (2007).

    the

    In

    so

    doing,

    court

    examines

    the

    sentence

    for

    significant procedural error, including failing to calculate


    (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
    Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
    3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
    erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
    sentence.

    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.


    2

    A district court must conduct

    an individualized assessment of the particular facts of every


    sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
    within the Guidelines range.

    United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

    325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).


    The

    district

    court

    appropriately

    determined

    that

    Barron-

    Espinosa was responsible for the distribution of 24 kilograms of


    cocaine based on his admissions and his stipulation in the plea
    agreement that he was attributable with at least 15 but not more
    than 150 kilograms of cocaine.

    The court properly increased

    Barron-Espinosas offense level based on his possession of a


    firearm, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 2D1.1(b)(1)
    (2013); his supervisory role based on his recruiting two persons
    and directing their activities, USSG 3B1.1(c); and maintaining
    a

    premises

    for

    2D1.1(b)(12).
    stipulation
    acceptance

    and
    of

    the

    purpose

    of

    drug

    trafficking,

    USSG

    Applying the new drug table per the Governments


    reducing

    Barron-Espinosas

    responsibility,

    the

    offense

    district

    court

    level

    for

    correctly

    computed Barron-Espinosas advisory Guidelines range as 168 to 210


    months. After considering the Governments motion and the relevant
    sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012), the court imposed
    a 120-month sentence.
    Counsel suggests that the sentence imposed is procedurally
    unreasonable because it resulted in sentence disparity between
    Barron-Espinosa and his co-conspirator.
    3

    See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)

    (2012) (requiring court to consider the need to avoid unwarranted


    sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
    have been found guilty of similar conduct).

    Although the court

    did not explicitly address this sentencing disparity argument, the


    court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed
    and did not commit procedural error. See United States v. Johnson,
    445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (court need not robotically
    tick through 3553(a)s every subsection).
    We conclude that the court adequately explained its reasons
    for

    the

    sentence

    imposed

    and

    that

    120-month

    unreasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

    sentence

    is

    not

    See United States v.

    Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate
    presumption of reasonableness to a sentence imposed within a
    properly calculated advisory Guidelines range); see also Rita v.
    United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption
    of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    therefore affirm Barron-Espinosas conviction and sentence.

    We
    This

    court requires that counsel inform Barron-Espinosa, in writing, of


    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.
    filed,

    but

    If Barron-Espinosa requests that a petition be

    counsel

    believes

    that

    such

    petition

    would

    be

    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


    4

    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a

    copy thereof was served on Barron-Espinosa.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the 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