US v. Juan Valencia, No. 10-4092 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JUAN MEDINA VALENCIA, a/k/a Carlos Diaz-Rios, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00139-JAB-1) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan written plea Medina Valencia pled agreement, to § 1326(a), violation of 8 U.S.C. sentenced to fifty-seven guilty, illegal reentry (b)(1) months pursuant of a felon, (2006). imprisonment. to He a in was Valencia s 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 the issue of whether Valencia s sentence is reasonable. Valencia was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government declined to file a response. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. When rendering individualized United States (internal a sentence, assessment v. Carter, quotation marks the based 564 district on F.3d and court the 325, emphasis must facts 328 Id. at 51. (4th omitted). make an presented. Cir. We 2009) then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, 2 taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 552 U.S. at 51. properly Gall, On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In this case, the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and heard argument from the counsel. Pursuant to our Anders review, we note the district court did not articulate its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors or give an individualized However, we conclude assessment that any such for Valencia s substantial rights. its omission chosen did sentence. not affect See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding no plain error in district court s brief explanation of chosen sentence, given that defense counsel argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range and the defendant received such a sentence). Here, defense counsel advocated end for Guidelines sentence offers range within no a sentence and the grounds reasonableness at the Valencia received Guidelines to rebut afforded low range. the a the advisory lowest possible Furthermore, Valencia the appellate of presumption within-Guidelines of sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Valencia. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 3 appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Valencia, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Valencia requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Valencia. 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 4
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.
