US v. Ballardo Garcia, No. 13-4812 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BALLARDO SOLAN GARCIA, a/k/a Bayardo Solano Garcia, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00240-TDS-1) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ballardo Solan Garcia pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment. attorney has filed California, 386 meritorious grounds district court a U.S. brief 738 for complied in accordance (1967), appeal, with On appeal, Garcia s stating but Fed. with that there questioning R. Crim. Anders P. v. are whether 11 no the when it accepted Garcia s guilty plea and the reasonableness of Garcia s sentence. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Garcia has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We conclude, based on our review of the transcript of Garcia s guilty plea hearing, that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Garcia s guilty plea. The court ensured that Garcia understood the charges against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119 20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Garcia s conviction. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. for reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 2 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. First, this properly U.S.C. court calculated § 3553(a) presented by the selected sentence. F.3d 572, 576 substantive totality of must the assess Guidelines (2012) range, factors, parties, and the district considered analyzed any sufficiently court the 18 arguments explained the Id. at 49 50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 (4th Cir. 2010). reasonableness the whether Id. of We the circumstances to also must see the examin[ing] sentence, consider the whether 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 Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. States, 551 U.S. 338, 346 56 (2007) See Rita v. United (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). Here, the district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from counsel and allocution from Garcia. relevant § 3553(a) factors and The court considered the explained that the within- Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense. Further, Garcia offers no grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines 3 sentence of reasonable. ten months imprisonment is substantively Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Garcia. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Garcia, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Garcia Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Garcia. 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.