US v. Jesus Garcia, No. 15-4113 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4113 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS MORALES GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:14-cr-00477-SB-1) Submitted: July 30, 2015 Before KING and Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, September 11, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesus Morales Garcia pled guilty to illegal reentry of a removed felon, (2012), and appeal, in counsel was violation sentenced has California, 386 meritorious grounds district court to filed U.S. 738 for complied of 8 30 a appeal § months’ brief (1967), with U.S.C. Fed. pursuant to that questioning R. (b)(1) imprisonment. stating but 1326(a), Crim. Anders there are whether P. 11 when On v. no the it accepted Garcia’s guilty plea and whether Garcia’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Because Garcia did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain error. 2014). United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. To establish plain error, Garcia must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden of demonstrating that an error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the Rule 11 error. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2147 (2013). 2 United States v. Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us complied to with guilty plea. conclude the that the mandates of district Rule 11 court in substantially accepting Garcia’s Any omissions by the district court did not affect Garcia’s substantial rights. See United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Garcia has failed to show that the district court’s acceptance of his guilty plea warrants reversal, we affirm his conviction. Garcia also questioned the reasonableness of his 30-month sentence. When reviewing a sentence for apply “an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). reasonableness, we Gall v. United States, We first examine the district court’s sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” or Id.; see also United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (“[W]e review the court’s factual findings for clear error, its legal conclusions de novo.”). If we find no significant procedural error, we then review the sentence totality of Mendoza, 597 for the F.3d substantive reasonableness, circumstances.” 212, 216 (4th 3 United Cir. “examin[ing] States 2010). the v. Mendoza– The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a sentence within or below the Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). An appellant can rebut that presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” We conclude procedural that Id. the district by correctly requirements court satisfied calculating the Garcia’s Guidelines range; considering the arguments of Garcia’s counsel, Garcia’s allocution, and the § 3553(a) factors; and providing an individualized assessment fully grounded in those factors. to substantive reasonableness, we conclude that Garcia As has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded to his below-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction and sentence. We 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 in this court 4 for leave to withdraw from representation. 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 5
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.
