US v. Juan Flores-Zuniga, No. 10-4231 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4231 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN FLORES-ZUNIGA, a/k/a Carlos Aquino-Zuniga, a/k/a Juan Resendez Flores, a/k/a Mario Recendiz Diarcia, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00074-NCT-1) Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Greensboro, North Carolina, for Miller, Assistant United States Carolina, for Appellee. Federal Public Defender, Appellant. Angela Hewlett Attorney, Greensboro, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Flores-Zuniga appeals his conviction and seventyseven month sentence for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation Zuniga s of 8 attorney U.S.C. has § 1326(a), filed a (b)(2) brief (2006). pursuant to FloresAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there are no meritorious issues on appeal but questioning whether Zuniga s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Flores- Flores-Zuniga did not file a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm. Appellate courts are charged with reviewing sentences Gall v. for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining procedural reasonableness, we first assess whether the district court properly range. calculated Id. at 49-50. the defendant s advisory guidelines We then determine whether the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any arguments presented by the parties, treated the guidelines as mandatory, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to sufficiently explain the selected sentence. Id. at 51; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account 2 the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. U.S. at 51). Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 552 We afford sentences that fall within the properly calculated guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, which can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d § 3553(a) factors. 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Zuniga s After reviewing the record, we conclude that Floressentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. deny counsel s motion to withdraw. We This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. was served on this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 3 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
