United States v. Flores-Ansencio , 297 F. App'x 226 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCO FLORES-ANSENCIO,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00178-REP-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Robert J.
Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard
D. Cooke, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcos Flores-Ansencio pled guilty to illegal reentry,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. ' 1326(a) (2000), and was sentenced to
twelve months= imprisonment, a sentence at the top of the
advisory guideline range suggested by the federal sentencing
guidelines. He appeals his sentence, asserting that it was
unreasonable and claiming that the district court failed to
provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the sentence. We
affirm.
Flores-Ansencio did not contest the adequacy of the
district court=s explanation for his sentence below, thus we
review for plain error his present claim on appeal. United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). When reviewing a
sentence for reasonableness, we first determine whether the
district court committed any procedural error, such as failing
to calculate the guideline range properly, consider the ' 3553(a)
factors, or explain the sentence adequately, and then decide
whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007). While a district
court must consider the various ' 3553(a) factors and explain its
sentence, it need not explicitly reference ' 3553 or discuss
every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes
a sentence within the guideline range. United States v.
Johnson, 455 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, the district
2
Court followed the necessary procedural steps. It is clear from
the record that the district court considered the ' 3553(a)
factors with respect to this defendant and that it considered
Flores-Ansencio=s arguments at sentencing. There was no need for
further elaboration by the district court. See United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 436 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006).
The appeals court must also consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. A
sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, as
Flores-Ansencio=s sentence was, may be accorded a presumption of
reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462 (2007). Flores-Ansencio does not contest the calculation
of his guideline range, and the district court sentenced him
within the properly-calculated range. As noted, the district
court imposed the sentence after considering the arguments at
the sentencing hearing, including Flores-Ansencio=s request for
leniency, and the ' 3553(a) factors. The district court
expressly rejected his request for leniency, noting that Flores-
Ansencio had failed to take advantage of the numerous
opportunities for leniency previously received and that his
previous deportation did not deter him from re-entering the
country illegally. We conclude that his sentence was
reasonable.
3
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4