US v. Leonardo Deleon, No. 10-4931 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4931 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEONARDO DELEON, a/k/a Cristan Reconco-Solorzano, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:09-cr-01042-TLW-1) Submitted: January 27, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonardo DeLeon pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006). Under the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines, DeLeon s base offense level was eight and he received a sixteen-level increase because he was deported See U.S. Sentencing after having committed a crime of violence. Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2009). The district court sentenced DeLeon to seventy months imprisonment, or the low end of the Guidelines. sentence is unreasonable On appeal, DeLeon claims that the because the sixteen-level creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity. increase Finding no error, we affirm. A sentence is reviewed abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). sentence an imposed within the properly calculated A Guidelines range, as was DeLeon s, is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). The sentence district below the court was Guidelines 2 aware sentence it could based on impose a DeLeon s argument. (2007). See Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101-07 However, the court was not obligated to agree with the argument, and increase was situated to in applied exercise to of Commission s this case concluded appropriate. weigh a the particular that The district Guidelines defendant, discretion, deliberations, policy and backed is that up our by proper. the sixteen-level court is better considerations deference the to as the [Sentencing] United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.) (alteration added), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009). There is nothing to suggest that DeLeon s within-Guidelines sentence is anything but reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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.
