UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LUIS GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:07-cr-00326-DKC-1) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Elita C. Amato, LAW OFFICE OF ELITA C. AMATO, Arlington, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Peter M. Nothstein, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Luis Gonzalez pled guilty to knowingly possessing a 

short-barreled shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 

5861(d), 5871 (2006) (Count One), and knowingly distributing 5 

grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2006) (Count Three). The district court sentenced 

Gonzalez to 120 months’ imprisonment on Count One and 126 

months’ imprisonment on Count Three, to run concurrently. On 

appeal, Gonzalez challenges the Government’s exercise of 

discretion in failing to move for an additional one level 

reduction of his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b), and claims his sentence was 

procedurally unreasonable. 

 The discretion for making the § 3E1.1 motion was with 

the Government in this case, pursuant to the terms of the plea 

agreement, and the decision whether or not to award an 

acceptance of responsibility adjustment is committed to the 

sentencing court’s broad discretion. See USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. 

n.5. Here, where Gonzalez wrote letters informing prison 

inmates about the identity of an informant, we find no error in 

the district court’s conclusion that such action constitutes 

obstruction of justice such that the Government did not breach 

the plea agreement in refusing to move for a USSG § 3E1.1 

reduction. 

2 
 This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district 

court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, 

reviewing both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. 

Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 

(4th Cir. 2008). On appeal, a sentence within the properly 

calculated guideline range is considered to be presumptively 

reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 

2007). 

 Our review of the record reveals that the district 

court made an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented during sentence and stated in open court its reasons 

supporting its chosen sentence. See United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Specifically, the district 

court discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense, 

Gonzalez’ characteristics, intelligence, close ties to his 

family, and desire to do good works in his community, and stated 

that it was imposing a sentence it felt was necessary to 

sufficiently punish Gonzalez for his criminal conduct, to 

address the danger Gonzalez posed to the community, to address 

his prior recidivism, and stated that the sentence would provide 

Gonzalez with an opportunity to reflect on his crimes, would 

protect the public, and would help him become a productive 

member of the community upon his release. The district court 

3 
4 

properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and 

we find no procedural sentencing infirmity nor any no abuse of 

discretion. 

 Accordingly, we affirm Gonzalez’ conviction and 

sentence. 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