US v. Rommel Duarte-Juarez, No. 13-4881 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4881 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROMMEL ERNESTO DUARTE-JUAREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:13-cr-00278-JMC-1) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rommel Ernesto Duarte-Juarez pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2012), and was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison. Duarte-Juarez s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court plainly erred when it imposed Duarte-Juarez s sentence. Duarte-Juarez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). both the sentence. district procedural and This review requires consideration of substantive Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. court properly reasonableness of the We first assess whether the calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49 51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 76 (4th Cir. 2 2010). we If the sentence is free of significant procedural error, review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence § 3553(a). it chose satisfied the standards set forth in United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In this case, the district court properly calculated Duarte-Juarez s Guidelines range, denied the Government s motion for a downward advisory, and variant sentence, considered the treated applicable the § Guidelines 3553(a) as factors. Moreover, the record establishes that the district court based Duarte-Juarez s sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 Accordingly, (4th Juarez s Cir. 2009). sentence is procedurally we conclude reasonable. that Duarte- Thus, in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, we presume on appeal that DuarteJuarez s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Duarte-Juarez, in writing, of the 3 right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but If Duarte-Juarez requests that a petition be 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 Duarte-Juarez. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
