USA v. Aldegundo Gonzalez-Q, No. 11-3551 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 16, 2012* Decided May 22, 2012 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 11 3551 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALDEGUNDO GONZALEZ QURIOZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 11 CR 00072 Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. O R D E R Aldegundo Gonzalez Qurioz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after having previously been removed, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court adopted the guidelines imprisonment range of 30 to 37 months (based on an offense level of 17 and criminal history category of III) from the presentence investigation report and sentenced Gonzalez Qurioz to 30 months. Gonzalez Qurioz filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer seeks to withdraw on the ground that all possible claims are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzalez Qurioz has not responded to counsel s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Page 2 We confine our review to the potential issues identified in counsel s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Gonzalez Qurioz has told counsel that he does not want his guilty plea set aside, so counsel properly omits any discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670 72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel considers whether Gonzalez Qurioz could challenge his sentence but properly concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous. Counsel cannot identify any reason to disregard the presumption that a within guidelines sentence is reasonable, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743, 746 (7th Cir. 2010). The district court properly evaluated the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In imposing a within range sentence, the judge acknowledged Gonzalez Qurioz s personal history and characteristics, see id. § 3553(a)(1) that he returned to the United States to earn money so he could better provide for his family, but also that he had illegally reentered multiple times and had several recent criminal convictions. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
