US v. Daniel Marroquin-Santiago, No. 12-4291 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL MARROQUIN-SANTIAGO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00232-WO-1) Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Marroquin-Santiago pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of illegal re-entry of a felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 twenty-one months in prison. * (2006), and was sentenced to Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but explaining that Marroquin-Santiago necessary to believes satisfy Supp. 2012) factors. the 18 his sentence U.S.C.A. is § 3553(a) greater (West than 2000 & Finding no error, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness, discretion standard of review. 38, 51 (2007). to ensure using an abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. The first step in this review requires the court that the procedural error. (4th Cir. 2008). district court committed no significant United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61 If, and only if, this court finds the sentence procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). * Marroquin-Santiago was originally sentenced to thirtythree months in prison, but after he appealed to this court, we remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing under our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 2 Marroquin-Santiago raises no challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence and, after reviewing the procedural reasonableness of the sentence in accordance with our obligations under issues for review. Anders, we have found no meritorious We thus presume that the twenty-one-month sentence, which was at the top of Marroquin-Santiago s properly calculated Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. 2007). Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. Although Marroquin-Santiago suggests that he should have been sentenced to a lesser term based on his personal history and characteristics, we conclude that the district court properly exercised its arguments in discretion to mitigation. See reject Marroquin-Santiago s Evans, 526 F.3d at 162 (recognizing that deference to a district court s sentence is required because the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case ). rebut presumption the Because this Marroquin-Santiago court affords a has failed to within-Guidelines sentence, we affirm his sentence. We have examined the entire record in accordance with our obligations under issues for appeal. judgment. Anders and have found no meritorious Accordingly, we affirm the district court s This court requires that counsel inform Marroquin- Santiago, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 3 of the United States for further review. If Marroquin-Santiago 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 MarroquinSantiago. 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 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.
