US v. Ignacio Carrizales, No. 12-4863 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4863 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. IGNACIO GARCIA CARRIZALES, Defendant -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. (1:12-cr-00061-WO-1) Submitted: May 20, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ignacio Mexico, pled Garcia guilty Carrizales, to one count a native of and illegal aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ (2006). The district court imposed a reentry of of an 1326(a), (b)(2) sentence months imprisonment and he now appeals. citizen of fifty-six Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. Although Garcia Carrizales was informed of the right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel sentence is questions unreasonably whether high the because it district is court s greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 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, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. 552 U.S. at 51. Gall, This court presumes on appeal that a sentence 2 within a properly reasonable. calculated advisory Guidelines range is 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 of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). that We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. court requires writing, of that the counsel right to inform petition United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but Garcia the This Carrizales, Supreme Court of in the If Garcia Carrizales 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 Garcia Carrizales. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
