US v. Victor Vallin-Jauregui, No. 13-4042 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4042 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VICTOR VALLIN-JAUREGUI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00105-FL-3) Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: October 15, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Vallin-Jauregui appeals from his seventy-month sentence following his guilty plea to assault causing serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 113(a)(6) (2006). Vallin-Jauregui challenges the district court s enhancement of his offense level based on his use of a dangerous weapon during the assault, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (2012), and the denial of his request for a sentence below his Guidelines range. When assessing a challenge to We affirm. the district court s application of the Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Alvarado Perez, Sentencing 609 F.3d Guidelines 609, define 612 a (4th United States v. Cir. dangerous 2010). weapon The as an instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or an object closely resembling such an instrument. § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1 (looking to USSG definition of dangerous weapon ). defined as injury involving § 1B1.1 cmt. See USSG n.1(D) for Serious bodily injury is extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(L). depends not on the or physical rehabilitation. USSG [W]hat constitutes a dangerous weapon object s intrinsic 2 character but on its capacity, given the manner of its inflict serious physical harm. F.3d 784, 787 (4th Cir. use, to endanger life or United States v. Sturgis, 48 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, forcefully Vallin-Jauregui s struck with a bar of victim soap was repeatedly inserted into a and sock. Under such circumstances, we conclude the district court did not err in finding that Vallin-Jauregui s improvised club constituted a dangerous weapon. United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d ( The 207, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) Guideline[s]-sanctioned definition of dangerous weapon encompasses an extremely broad range of instrumentalities. ); see Tolliver v. Sheets, 594 F.3d 900, 911 n.3 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that sock containing bars of soap could be considered deadly weapon); United States v. Daulton, 488 F.2d 524, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1973) (stating that bars of soap wrapped in towel and swung like club was potentially deadly weapon). We also reject Vallin-Jauregui s suggestion that § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) should not be applied in the absence of evidence injury. that the Because dangerous the weapon district in court fact caused properly serious relied on judicially found facts at sentencing, the district court did not err in the calculation of Vallin-Jauregui s Guidelines range. United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 312 (4th Cir. 2008). 3 Finally, abused its variance. the Vallin-Jaurequi discretion in denying asserts his the request district for a court downward Our review of the record leads us to conclude that district court adequately addressed the request for a variance and did not rely on clearly erroneous facts in denying it. Thus, the sentence imposed is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). 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.
