US v. Manuel Hernandez, No. 10-4437 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4437 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MANUEL MANUEL HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Armando Quintero Fernandez, a/k/a Pedro Macedo Brito, a/k/a Manuel Hernandez Fernandez, 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. (1:09-cr-00198-NCT-1) Submitted: January 26, 2011 Decided: March 11, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Manuel Manuel Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the country after having been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a), Hernandez appeals. (b)(2) to (2006). sixty-four The months district of court imprisonment sentenced and he now Finding no error, we affirm. Hernandez unreasonable. argues that the sentence is substantively We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based § on 3553(a) clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . . Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). If the sentence is within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th 2 Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption within-guidelines sentence). conclude that a of reasonableness for The fact that we might reasonably different sentence is appropriate insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. 517 F.3d at 218 (citation omitted). is Go, We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Hernandez has failed to rebut the presumption we accord on appeal to his within-guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
