Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    United States v. Nelson Torres-Amparo, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. He was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment. 2) Torres-Amparo's counsel filed an Anders brief questioning whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 3) The court found both that the sentence was procedurally reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, which was within the recommended guidelines range. The court therefore affirmed Torres-Amparo's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Nelson Torres-Amparo, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views3 pages
    1) Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. He was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment. 2) Torres-Amparo's counsel filed an Anders brief questioning whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 3) The court found both that the sentence was procedurally reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, which was within the recommended guidelines range. The court therefore affirmed Torres-Amparo's conviction and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-5182

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. He was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment. 2) Torres-Amparo's counsel filed an Anders brief questioning whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 3) The court found both that the sentence was procedurally reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, which was within the recommended guidelines range. The court therefore affirmed Torres-Amparo's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    33 views3 pages

    United States v. Nelson Torres-Amparo, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. He was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment. 2) Torres-Amparo's counsel filed an Anders brief questioning whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 3) The court found both that the sentence was procedurally reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, which was within the recommended guidelines range. The court therefore affirmed Torres-Amparo's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-5182

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    NELSON DAVID TORRES-AMPARO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00226-RJC-1)

    Submitted:

    August 9, 2011

    Decided:

    August 19, 2011

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claire J. Rauscher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,


    INC., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Nelson David Torres-Amparo pleaded guilty to one count
    of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8
    U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
    Torres-Amparo

    to

    Torres-Amparos

    seventy

    counsel

    The district court sentenced

    months

    filed

    imprisonment.

    brief

    On

    pursuant

    appeal,

    Anders

    to

    v.

    California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no


    meritorious

    issue

    Torres-Amparos

    for

    appeal,

    sentence

    but

    was

    questioning

    substantively

    whether

    unreasonable.

    Although Torres-Amparo was informed of his right to file a pro


    se

    supplemental

    brief,

    he

    has

    not

    declined to file a responsive brief.


    This

    court

    reviews

    done

    so.

    The

    Government

    We affirm.

    sentence

    using an abuse-of-discretion standard.

    for

    reasonableness,

    Gall v. United States,

    552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511
    F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007).

    The first step in this review

    requires the court to inspect for procedural reasonableness by


    ensuring

    that

    the

    district

    court

    committed

    no

    significant

    procedural errors, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines


    range

    or

    factors.

    failing

    to

    consider

    the

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    (2006)

    United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th

    Cir. 2010).

    A reviewing court then considers the substantive

    reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the


    totality

    of

    the

    circumstances.
    2

    Gall,

    552

    U.S.

    at

    51.

    We

    presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines


    range is reasonable.
    (4th Cir. 2007).

    United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193

    That presumption may be rebutted by a showing

    that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the


    United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d

    3553(a) factors.

    375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    After

    thoroughly

    reviewing

    the

    record,

    we

    conclude

    that

    Torres-Amparos sentence was both procedurally and substantively


    reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We

    therefore

    This

    court

    writing,

    of

    affirm

    Torres-Amparos

    requires
    the

    that

    right

    to

    counsel
    petition

    United States for further review.


    that

    petition

    be

    filed,

    but

    conviction
    inform
    the

    and

    sentence.

    Torres-Amparo,

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    in
    the

    If Torres-Amparo requests

    counsel

    believes

    that

    such

    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court


    for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on Torres-Amparo.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3

    You might also like