US v. Miguel Barajas-Garcia, No. 10-4436 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4436 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MIGUEL BARAJAS-GARCIA, a/k/a Filimon Soto-Martinez, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00256-NCT-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Miguel Barajas-Garcia appeals the fifty-seven-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) (2006). that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. The court reviews He contends We affirm. Barajas-Garcia s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a sentence, this court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly United States v. Osborne, 514 calculating the guidelines range. F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008). When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also state in open court the particular reasons supporting its satisfy this arguments and chosen Court has a sentence that it reasoned and has basis legal decisionmaking authority. omitted). 2 set forth considered for the enough exercising to parties [its] own Id. (internal quotation marks If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then review it for substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Even if this court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id. at 474 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Barajas-Garcia range was properly does not calculated. dispute He that argues his guidelines instead that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and the district court should have imposed a sentence at the bottom of or below the guideline range because his offense level and his criminal history category overstate the seriousness of his offenses, and because of the unavailability of the fast track departure scheme. We imposed apply within reasonable. an the appellate properly presumption calculated that guidelines a sentence range is United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence). In rejecting Barajas-Garcia s arguments 3 for a lesser sentence, the district court thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and determined that they were best served by the imposition of a within-guidelines sentence. Furthermore, the court acknowledged its authority to impose a downward variance sentence, but concluded that, in light of the seriousness respect of for Barajas-Garcia s prior law, his use reentry unlawful the of into the United offenses, different States deported, a variance was not warranted. discretion in this determination. his lack and names, after of his having been We find no abuse of See United States v. Crawford, 18 F.3d 1173, 1174-76, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994) (upholding unlawful reentry sentence where offense level was increased by sixteen and criminal history points by six based on prior felony offense); see also United States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. scheme 2006) does not (holding amount that to lack of sentencing fast track disparity departure warranting a lower sentence). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a fifty-seven-month sentence was appropriate. We further conclude that Barajas-Garcia s sentence is reasonable. affirm the sentence. facts and legal Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
