US v. Sergio Reynosa-Atisuego, No. 09-4971 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SERGIO REYNOSA-ATISUEGO, a/k/a Sergio Reynosa-Ariseaga, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00046-FL-1) Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sergio Reynosa-Atisuego pled guilty without a plea agreement to unlawful reentry by a previously deported felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to forty-six months in prison. He now appeals his sentence. Reynosa-Atisuego unreasonable. contends his sentence is We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the that We affirm. sentence Gall v. United States, 552 In conducting our review, we first examine for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or explain the chosen sentence. . . . substantive reasonableness of the failing Id. to adequately We next consider the sentence imposed . . [taking] into account the totality of the circumstances. In imposing sentence, the district court must provide . , Id. an individualized assessment based upon the specific facts before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the procedural steps calculating the individualized in district court sentencing advisory assessment the necessary Reynosa-Atisuego, correctly Guidelines of the 2 followed range, § 3553(a) performing factors as an they applied to the facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. We presume that the sentence, which falls within the advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We note that the district denying court expressed its reasons for Reynosa- Atisuego s motion for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range. The court stated that the nature of the offense, the need to deter such conduct, and the need to promote respect for the law warranted a sentence at the low end of, rather than below, that range. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a forty-six-month sentence. We accordingly affirm. 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.
