US v. Juan Guerrero, No. 15-4292 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4292 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JUAN GUERRERO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00237-D-1) Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: January 15, 2016 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Juan Guerrero prohibited was object in § 1791(a)(2) (2012). convicted prison, court in knowingly violation possessing of 18 a U.S.C. The district court sentenced Guerrero to 24 months of imprisonment. district of imposed a On appeal, Guerrero argues that the substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm. We review for abuse of discretion Guerrero’s claim that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). See Gall v. More specifically, we examine the “totality of the circumstances” in considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. § 3553(a). On reasonableness appeal, to a this court applies within-Guidelines-range a 18 U.S.C. presumption sentence. States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015). of United “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). After reviewing the record, we sentence was substantively reasonable. bottom of his Guidelines range. 2 conclude that Guerrero’s His sentence fell at the The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the offense, Guerrero’s criminal history, the time spent in segregation and lost good time credit due to the offense, characteristics. and his positive personal history and In sum, Guerrero has not rebutted the presumed substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We therefore affirm the judgment. 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 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.
