US v. Joe Ovalles, No. 12-4894 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4894 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOE OVALLES, a/k/a Jose Ovalles, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00077-HEH-3) Submitted: January 2, 2014 Decided: January 29, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin F. Brooks, EDWIN F. BROOKS, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joe sentencing Ovalles him to appeals the fifty-seven district months court s judgment imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic contraband cigarettes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2342(a) (2012), possession of contraband cigarettes, in violation of § 2342(a), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (2012). On appeal, Ovalles argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. * We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We conclude that Ovalles sentence, which was at the top of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, is * Ovalles filed his notice of appeal more than fourteen days after the district court s judgment was entered. However, failure to comply with Rule 4(b)(1)(A) does not deprive this court of jurisdiction. United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore reach the merits of this appeal. 2 not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered and rejected Ovalles arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. The court concluded that Ovalles was a significant player in the large-scale trafficking conspiracy with a greater stake in the venture than his co-defendants, finding that a within-Guidelines sentence was deterrence, necessary to promote to provide respect for just the law, punishment and consistency among similarly situated individuals. to and provide Because the district court acted well within its considerable discretion in making these determinations, we conclude that Ovalles has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that this court attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument will 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.
