US v. Luis Guzman-Villa, No. 12-4601 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUIS GUZMAN-VILLA, a/k/a David Roque-Sanchez, a/k/a Miguel Ordaz-Chavez, a/k/a Benito Goicochea Pineda, 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. (1:12-cr-00044-JAB-1) Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 7, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Luis Guzman-Villa pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to illegal reentry after having been convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). On appeal, He was sentenced to fifty months imprisonment. counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review the reasonableness of the fifty-month sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Guzman-Villa has not done so. We affirm. We review Guzman-Villa s sentence for reasonableness, applying States, an abuse 552 U.S. consideration of 38, of discretion 46, both 51 standard. (2007). the whether the district court This procedural reasonableness of the sentence. Gall review and Id. at 51. properly v. United requires substantive We first assess calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 76 (4th Cir. 2010). substantive totality of If there is no procedural error, we review the reasonableness the of circumstances the to 2 sentence, see examin[ing] whether the the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the defendant s properly calculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United appellate States, presumption 551 of U.S. 338, 347 reasonableness (2007) for (permitting within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence reasonable. computation We of is discern both the no procedurally error applicable in and the substantively district Guidelines court s range, the opportunities it provided Guzman-Villa and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the relevant § 3553(a) factors. basis in the record to overcome Nor do we find any the presumption of reasonableness we accord this within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Guzman-Villa s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and supported by an independent basis in fact. affirm the judgment of the district court. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Guzman-Villa, in writing, of the right to 3 petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Guzman-Villa requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. was served on in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof Guzman-Villa. 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 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.
