Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    United States v. Ballardo Garcia, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ballardo Solan Garcia's conviction and sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Garcia's guilty plea and complied with Rule 11. The Court also determined that Garcia's within-Guidelines sentence of ten months' imprisonment was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Ballardo Garcia, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ballardo Solan Garcia's conviction and sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Garcia's guilty plea and complied with Rule 11. The Court also determined that Garcia's within-Guidelines sentence of ten months' imprisonment was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-4812

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ballardo Solan Garcia's conviction and sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Garcia's guilty plea and complied with Rule 11. The Court also determined that Garcia's within-Guidelines sentence of ten months' imprisonment was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views4 pages

    United States v. Ballardo Garcia, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ballardo Solan Garcia's conviction and sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Garcia's guilty plea and complied with Rule 11. The Court also determined that Garcia's within-Guidelines sentence of ten months' imprisonment was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-4812

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BALLARDO SOLAN GARCIA, a/k/a Bayardo Solano Garcia,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00240-TDS-1)

    Submitted:

    June 26, 2014

    Decided:

    July 1, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North


    Carolina, for Appellant.
    Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ballardo

    Solan

    Garcia

    pled

    guilty,

    pursuant

    to

    written plea agreement, to being an illegal alien in possession


    of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2012), and was
    sentenced to ten months of imprisonment.
    attorney

    has

    filed

    California,

    386

    meritorious

    grounds

    district

    court

    U.S.

    brief
    738

    for

    complied

    in

    accordance

    (1967),
    appeal,
    with

    On appeal, Garcias

    stating
    but

    Fed.

    with

    that

    there

    questioning
    R.

    Crim.

    Anders

    P.

    v.

    are

    whether
    11

    no
    the

    when

    it

    accepted Garcias guilty plea and the reasonableness of Garcias


    sentence.

    Although informed of his right to file a supplemental

    pro se brief, Garcia has not done so. For the reasons that
    follow, we affirm.
    We conclude, based on our review of the transcript of
    Garcias

    guilty

    plea

    hearing,

    that

    the

    district

    court

    fully

    complied with Rule 11 in accepting Garcias guilty plea.

    The

    court ensured that Garcia understood the charges against him and
    the

    potential

    sentence

    he

    faced,

    that

    he

    entered

    his

    plea

    knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an


    independent factual basis.

    See United States v. DeFusco, 949

    F.2d 114, 116, 11920 (4th Cir. 1991).

    Accordingly, we affirm

    Garcias conviction.
    We

    review

    sentence

    abuse-of-discretion standard.

    for

    reasonableness

    under

    an

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.


    2

    38, 51 (2007).

    This review requires consideration of both the

    procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.


    First,

    this

    properly
    U.S.C.

    court

    calculated

    3553(a)

    presented

    by

    the

    selected sentence.
    F.3d

    572,

    576

    substantive
    totality

    of

    must
    the

    assess

    Guidelines

    (2012)

    range,

    factors,

    parties,

    and

    the

    district

    considered

    analyzed

    any

    sufficiently

    court
    the

    18

    arguments

    explained

    the

    Id. at 4950; see United States v. Lynn, 592

    (4th

    Cir.

    2010).

    reasonableness
    the

    whether

    Id.

    of

    We

    the

    circumstances

    to

    also

    must

    sentence,
    see

    consider

    the

    examin[ing]

    the

    whether

    the

    sentencing

    court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it


    chose satisfied the standards set forth in 3553(a).

    United

    States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).


    If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
    appeal that the sentence is reasonable.
    States,

    551

    U.S.

    338,

    34656

    (2007)

    See Rita v. United


    (permitting

    appellate

    presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).


    Here,

    the

    district

    court

    correctly

    calculated

    and

    considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from


    counsel and allocution from Garcia.
    relevant

    3553(a)

    factors

    and

    The court considered the

    explained

    that

    the

    within-

    Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and


    circumstances of the offense.

    Further, Garcia offers no grounds

    to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines


    3

    sentence

    of

    reasonable.

    ten

    months

    imprisonment

    is

    substantively

    Accordingly, we conclude that the district court

    did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Garcia.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court

    requires that counsel inform Garcia, in writing, of the right to


    petition

    the

    Supreme

    review.

    If

    Garcia

    Court

    of

    requests

    the
    that

    United
    a

    States

    petition

    be

    for

    further

    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 Garcia.

    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

    You might also like