0% found this document useful (0 votes)
59 views4 pagesUnited States v. Torres, 4th Cir. (2008)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Alfredo Montesinos Torres' sentence for making a false statement in a passport application and aggravated identity theft. The court found that the district court properly calculated Torres' sentencing guidelines range and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 25-month total sentence, consisting of a 1-month sentence for the false statement count within the guidelines range, and a mandatory consecutive 24-month sentence for the identity theft count required by statute. The Fourth Circuit conducted a full review and found no issues meriting appeal.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
59 views4 pagesUnited States v. Torres, 4th Cir. (2008)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Alfredo Montesinos Torres' sentence for making a false statement in a passport application and aggravated identity theft. The court found that the district court properly calculated Torres' sentencing guidelines range and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 25-month total sentence, consisting of a 1-month sentence for the false statement count within the guidelines range, and a mandatory consecutive 24-month sentence for the identity theft count required by statute. The Fourth Circuit conducted a full review and found no issues meriting appeal.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO MONTESINOS TORRES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00408)
Submitted:
February 21, 2008
Decided:
February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Montesinos Torres appeals his sentence after
pleading guilty to one count of making a false statement in a
passport application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 1542 (West
Supp. 2007), and one count of aggravated identity theft during and
in relation to the false passport statement, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A.
1028A(a)(1)
(West
Supp.
2007).
Counsel
filed
an
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief and raised the
issue of whether Torres sentence was erroneous.
Torres was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not done so.
The Government declined to file a reply brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
As
recently
determined
by
the
Supreme
Court,
[r]egardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside
the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
Appellate courts remain charged with
reviewing
reasonableness.
sentences
for
Id.
at
594,
597.
Reasonableness review requires appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id. at
597.
In
determining
whether
sentence
is
procedurally
reasonable, this court first assesses whether the district court
properly calculated the defendants advisory Guidelines range. Id.
- 2 -
at 596-97.
This court must then consider whether the district
court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp.
2007)
factors,
selected
sentence
based
on
clearly
erroneous facts, or failed to sufficiently explain the selected
sentence.
Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 2007
WL 4555520, *5 (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2007).
Finally, this court
reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.
Pauley, 2007
WL 4555520, *5 (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597).
This court
affords
calculated
sentences
that
fall
within
the
properly
Guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness, a presumption
permitted by the Supreme Court.
Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2459, 2462 (2007).
Our review of the record reveals that the Guidelines
range was properly calculated, and therefore the one-month sentence
imposed by the district court on the false statement count is
afforded a presumption of reasonableness.
The district court was
obligated by statute to impose the consecutive 24-month sentence,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. 1028A (West Supp. 2007).
After a
thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the twenty-five month
total sentence.
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Torres conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
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 -
