Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis SOLIS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-4504
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 21, 2017
    Decided: December 27, 2017
    James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Beth Drake, United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Solis-Flores appeals the 70-month sentence that the district court imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). On appeal, Solis-Flores contends that the district court erred in imposing the within-Guidelines-range sentence. Solis-Flores provides no argument in support of his assertion and has therefore waived appellate review of this issue. See Hensley on behalf of N. C. v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580-81 & n.5 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[A] party must do more than take a passing shot at an issue to properly preserve it for appellate review.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (concluding that single, conelusory remark is insufficient to preserve issue for appellate review); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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