US v. Jose Solis-Flores, No. 17-4504 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4504 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE LUIS SOLIS-FLORES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:16-cr-00611-TMC-1) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Beth Drake, United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Luis Solis-Flores appeals the 70-month sentence that the district court imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). On appeal, Solis-Flores contends that the district court erred in imposing the within-Guidelines-range sentence. Solis-Flores provides no argument in support of his assertion and has therefore waived appellate review of this issue. See Hensley on behalf of N.C. v. Price, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-1294, 2017 WL 5711029, at *4 & n.5 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017) (“[A] party must do more than take a passing shot at an issue to properly preserve it for appellate review.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (concluding that single, conclusory remark is insufficient to preserve issue for appellate review); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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 2

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.