US v. Israel Garcia, No. 12-4378 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISRAEL PEREZ GARCIA, a/k/a Esequiel Garcia Guzman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00212-TDS-1) Submitted: January 14, 2013 Decided: January 18, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Israel pleading Perez guilty Garcia to appeals conspiracy his to sentence distribute after cocaine hydrochloride and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Garcia s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in denying Garcia s request for a variance sentence below his Guidelines range. Garcia was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We review discretion standard. a (2007). that under a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, sentence We affirm. district such as court committed improperly no calculating significant the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). procedurally reasonable, we then United States v. If the sentence is consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated 2 Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). In calculate sentencing, the opportunity Guidelines to appropriate. argue § 3553(a) sentence district range for and whatever court give should the first parties sentence they an deem United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). the the The district court should then consider factors requested by to determine either whether they support Id. When rendering party. the a sentence, the district court must make and place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. In explaining the chosen sentence, the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Garcia s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing him. The district court properly calculated Garcia s Guidelines 3 range, reasonably determined that a sentence within that range was appropriate based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained its sentencing decision. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but If the client requests 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
