US v. Israel Cabrera, No. 10-5038 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ISRAEL ANTONIO CABRERA, a/k/a Jose Antonio Cabrera, a/k/a Isareal Antonnio Cabrera, a/k/a Isareal Antonio Cabrera, a/k/a Israel Cabrera, a/k/a Israel A. Cabrera, a/k/a Isreal A. Cabrera, a/k/a Jose N. Campos, a/k/a Israel Cabrara, a/k/a X Israel, a/k/a Jose Campos, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-AJT-1) Submitted: May 27, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Priya B. Viswanath, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Israel Antonio Cabrera appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006) and the resulting sixty-six-month sentence imposed. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Cabrera did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Government elected not to file a brief. The We affirm. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, the court is to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, assume its credibility, and draw all verdict favorable if essential doubt. any inferences. rational elements of trier the We of crime will fact sustain could charged the have beyond a jury s found the reasonable United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); United 2002). We States have v. Lomax, reviewed the 293 F.3d record 701, and find 705 (4th the Cir. evidence sufficient to convict Cabrera. A sentencing. must review of the record also reveals no error in When determining a sentence, the district court calculate the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, review 49-50 (2007). Appellate 2 of a district court s imposition of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Cabrera, appropriately treating the Sentencing calculating and considering Cabrera s Guidelines considering the request as applicable for a reasoning for the properly Guidelines downward weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. thorough advisory, range, variance, and The court provided below-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cabrera s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cabrera, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cabrera requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cabrera. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 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.
