US v. Edgar Argueta, No. 09-4014 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDGAR WILSANDER ARGUETA, a/k/a Jonathan E. Gutierrez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00349-REP-1) Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 15, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Interim United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edgar reentering the Wilsander United Argueta States pled after guilty to previously illegally having been deported following an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to forty-eight months of imprisonment. that the district court s Argueta appeals, alleging sentence substantively unreasonable. was procedurally and For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Prior to sentencing the district court advised the parties it was considering an upward variance because of the defendant s repeated violation of immigration laws and violent criminal activity. At the sentencing hearing, the court adopted the finding in the presentence report that Argueta s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 30-37 months. objected to this finding. Neither party After considering this range, the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and the parties arguments, the court imposed a forty-eight-month sentence. The court provided specific reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory range. Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (providing standard). substantive error, In particular, we find no procedural or in light of 2 how the court calculated Argueta s sentence and explained its reasons therefor. United States 2007). v. Pauley, 511 Accordingly, we affirm. F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
