UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

RICARDO CENTENO-VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Ricardo Villanueva, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1) 

Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Angela 

Parrott, Cecilia Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH 

CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Adam Morris, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Ricardo Centeno-Villanueva pled guilty to illegally 

reentering the United States after having been deported 

subsequent to the commission of an aggravated felony, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b) (2006). He was sentenced 

to seventy-seven months’ imprisonment. Centeno-Villanueva now 

appeals, arguing that the district court erred in relying upon 

his 1992 conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor 

to add three criminal history points to the Sentencing 

Guidelines calculation for his current offense. According to 

Centeno-Villanueva, he may have left the United States following 

his arrests in 2000 or 2004 and reentered again before being 

arrested in 2007. If this occurred, his 1992 conviction may 

well have preceded Centeno-Villanueva’s most recent reentry into 

the United States by more than fifteen years, thus disqualifying 

it from consideration in the assessment of Centeno-Villanueva’s 

Guidelines range. 

 This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district 

court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans, 

526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a sentence, the 

appellate court must first ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate or improperly calculating the Guidelines range. Gall, 

2 
552 U.S. at 51. District courts are obliged to make factual 

determinations supporting the calculation of a defendant’s 

advisory guidelines range by a preponderance of the evidence. 

United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 570 (4th Cir. 2009). 

These factual determinations by the district court are reviewed 

for clear error and will be reversed only if this court is “left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th 

Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

 According to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 4A1.2(e)(1), for purposes of calculating criminal 

history, “[a]ny prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one 

year and one month that was imposed within fifteen years of the 

defendant’s commencement of the instant offense is counted.” 

USSG § 4A1.2(e)(1). The Government concedes that CentenoVillanueva’s exact reentry date into the United States is 

unknown. However, the uncontested facts in the record are that 

Centeno-Villanueva was originally convicted of indecent 

liberties in North Carolina in 1992, was subsequently deported, 

and was thereafter arrested in North Carolina in 2000, 2004, and 

2007. This is strong circumstantial evidence from which the 

district court could conclude that Centeno-Villanueva illegally 

reentered the United States after 2000 or 2004 and failed to 

3 
4 

leave the country. See United States v. Levenite, 277 F.3d 454, 

468 (4th Cir. 2002). 

 In the district court, Centeno-Villanueva failed to 

offer any evidence to rebut the district court’s fact finding 

that he illegally reentered the United States in either 2000 or 

2004 and failed to leave after commencing a § 1326 offense. “If 

the district court relies on information in the presentence 

report (PSR) in making findings, the defendant bears the burden 

of establishing that the information relied on by the district 

court in making its findings is incorrect; mere objections are 

insufficient.” United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210-11 

(4th Cir. 1999). On appeal, Centeno-Villanueva merely asserts 

that he may have left the country, and therefore, the district 

court erred. His bare assertion of what may have occurred is 

insufficient to establish a “definite and firm conviction” that 

the district court committed a mistake in applying three 

criminal history points for his 1992 conviction. See Harvey, 

532 F.3d at 336-37. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED