US v. Jose Morales, No. 13-4592 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4592 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE JOAQUIN MORALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00514-RWT-1) Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 11, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Joaquin Morales pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Morales to 262 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, the sentence. Morales challenges the reasonableness of 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). for significant calculate (or In so doing, we examine the sentence procedural improperly error, calculating) including the failing Guidelines to range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the chosen sentence. or failing to adequately Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. 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). 2 Morales argues both that the district court failed to adequately consider his sentencing arguments in mitigation and that the sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively calculated reasonable. the advisory The district Guidelines court range, properly considered the parties arguments, and thoroughly explained its reasoning for the sentence. (4th Cir. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 2009) (district court must conduct individualized assessment based on the particular facts of each case, whether sentence is above, below, or within the Guidelines range). In addition, we conclude that Morales has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness applied to his within-Guidelines sentence. Cir. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 271 (4th 2008) sentence (appellate might be court s conclusion appropriate is that a insufficient different to justify reversal of the district court s judgment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
