US v. Ismael Ocegueda-Gonzalez, No. 15-4687 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4687 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISMAEL OCEGUEDA-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Ismael Ozequeda-Gonzalez, a/k/a Ismael Gonzalez-Ocegueda, a/k/a Arnoldo Pineda-Orkeda, a/k/a Mario Hernandez, 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. (1:15-cr-00030-NCT-1) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Assistant Federal Appellant. Lisa Greensboro, North Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ismael Ocegueda-Gonzalez pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and the district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Ocegueda-Gonzalez’s sentence is reasonable. Ocegueda-Gonzalez was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We review a sentence We affirm. for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that were not selected clearly erroneous, sentence. Gall, and 552 sufficiently U.S. at 49-51. explained Only the after determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” 2 Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Our review procedural Gonzalez of the sentencing has not sentencing errors, rebutted and the we transcript conclude presumption revealed that that no Ocegueda- his within- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Ocegueda-Gonzalez, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but If Ocegueda-Gonzalez requests that a petition be 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 Ocegueda-Gonzalez. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are 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.
