US v. Daniel Delgado, No. 11-5035 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANIEL DAVID GUERRA DELGADO, Defendant -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. (1:11-cr-00082-JAB-1) Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel David Guerra Delgado pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Delgado to forty-one months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. Although Delgado was informed of the right to file a supplemental pro se brief he has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Counsel questions whether the sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range was reasonable. sentence for standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse We review a of discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based § 3553(a) on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines 2 range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption within-Guidelines sentence). of reasonableness for We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence was reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Delgado, Court of in the If Delgado 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 Delgado. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
