US v. Adrian Perez-Sanchez, No. 10-5039 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ADRIAN PEREZ-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Eliceo Barrientos, a/k/a Carlos Rojas-Tenerio, 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-00330-NCT-1) Submitted: July 11, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas H. Johnson, GRAY, JOHNSON & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Adrian Perez-Sanchez appeals the eighteen-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). On appeal, Perez-Sanchez argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of sentencing error in district court [b]y drawing arguments from [18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [2006] for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed ). We begin by reviewing the sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 2 United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We presume reasonable a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized presented. Cir. 2009) assessment based on the facts United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must state in open court the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. The court s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must Id. be sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for authority. exercising [its] own legal decicisionmaking United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). We procedural district hold nor court that the substantive correctly district court error during calculated the committed sentencing. advisory neither The Guidelines range and, contrary to Perez-Sanchez s assertion, sentenced him within that range. Further, it is apparent from the court s 3 discussion that it considered both parties arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision. Accordingly, we 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 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.
