US v. Lionel Rojas, No. 19-4358 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4358 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIONEL ROJAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:17-cr-01167-BHH-1) Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: December 6, 2019 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel Josev Brewer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Lionel Rojas pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012) (Count 1), and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (Count 3), and was sentenced to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment. Rojas appeals. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Rojas’ sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rojas has not done so. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 2 We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rojas’ sentence is procedurally reasonable, and that Rojas fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated his Guidelines range and reasonably determined that a sentence below the Guidelines range was appropriate in this case. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Rojas, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Rojas requests that a petition be filed, but 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 Rojas. 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.
