US v. Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon, No. 10-4588 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4588 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ADIEL GUTIERREZ-MONDRAGON, a/k/a Pedro Gonzalez Penaloza, a/k/a Adiel Gutierrez, a/k/a Gabriel Gonzalez-Penaloza, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00099-JAB-1) Submitted: December 13, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adiel Gutierrez-Mondragon pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2006). The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) called for a sentencing range of 57 months to 71 months, and GutierrezMondragon received a 60-month sentence. Gutierrez-Mondragon now appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to address all of counsel s sentencing arguments and failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). district A sentence court Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 is properly Guidelines range, sentencing factors, procedurally calculated considered analyzed reasonable the where defendant s the 18 U.S.C. any arguments § the advisory 3553(a) presented (2006) by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50. In this case, the district court complied with § 3553(a), Gall, and this court s sentencing precedent. The district court heard arguments from the parties and permitted Gutierrez-Mondragon to speak on his own behalf. The court explained that, after considering all the factors listed and 2 arguments made by counsel, it found no reason to depart from the advisory guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we reject Gutierrez- Mondragon s claim of procedural error. See United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) ( Generally, an adequate explanation for a Guidelines sentence is provided when the district court indicates that it is resting its decision on the commission s own reasoning . . . and . . . the case before [the quotation court] is typical. (internal marks and alterations omitted)). We accordingly affirm the district court s judgment. 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.
