US v. Dagoberto Tiznado, No. 12-4460 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAGOBERTO TIZNADO, a/k/a Dago Berto Tiznado, a/k/a Dagoberto Soriano-Tiznado, a/k/a Walter Soriano, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00608-CCB-1) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven H. Jesser, STEVEN H. JESSER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., Skokie, Illinois, for Appellant. Christine Lisa Duey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Roger Kristian Picker, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dagoberto agreement, to Tiznado illegal pled reentry guilty, pursuant following a to conviction a plea for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court calculated Tiznado s advisory Guidelines range as twenty-seven to thirty-three months, imposed an upward variance, imprisonment. and He appeals. sentenced Tiznado to fifty months Tiznado s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenges Tiznado s sentence. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Tiznado has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. We review the district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] . . standard. of examine the United the under a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). standard under . review involves sentence second, States v. we for steps; significant review Pauley, two 511 the under procedural substance F.3d 468, (analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). the 473 of This first, errors, the (4th we and sentence. Cir. 2007) Significant procedural errors include failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating 2 the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] 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 range. 552 U.S. at 51. Gall, If there are no significant procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. When the district court imposes a variant sentence, we consider whether the . . . court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision respect to the extent range. of to impose the such divergence a sentence from the and with sentencing United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). Such a sentence is unreasonable if the district court provided an inadequate statement of reasons or relie[d] on improper factors in imposing a sentence outside the properly calculated advisory sentencing range. Id. At sentencing after properly calculating Tiznado s Guidelines Tiznado concluded range, the hearing opportunity that an upward argument to from allocute variance under counsel, the § and district 3553(a) to giving court fifty months imprisonment was necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing. In reaching this conclusion, the court properly considered Tiznado s history and characteristics and the need for the sentence to afford adequate 3 deterrence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), making note of the fact that Tiznado was a repeat offender despite his prior forty-six month sentence for an identical offense and his promise to the court at the time of his sentencing for the earlier return to the United States. conviction that he would not The district court s consideration of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and articulation of the reasons warranting an upward variance from the Guidelines range support our decision to defer to the district determination as to the extent of the variance. court s United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366-67 (4th Cir.) (affirming substantive reasonableness of variance sentence six years greater than Guidelines range because sentence was based on the district court s examination of relevant § 3553(a) factors), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011); see also United States v. Angle, 598 F.3d 352, 359 (7th Cir. 2010) ( All that matters is that the sentence imposed be reasonable in relation to the package of reasons given by the court. ). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. motion to withdraw from representation is denied. Counsel s This court requires that counsel inform Tiznado, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Tiznado requests that 4 a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Tiznado. 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 5
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.
