UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-5084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARCO FLORES-ANSENCIO, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00178-REP-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. 

Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard 

D. Cooke, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Marcos Flores-Ansencio pled guilty to illegal reentry, 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. ' 1326(a) (2000), and was sentenced to 

twelve months= imprisonment, a sentence at the top of the 

advisory guideline range suggested by the federal sentencing 

guidelines. He appeals his sentence, asserting that it was 

unreasonable and claiming that the district court failed to 

provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the sentence. We 

affirm. 

Flores-Ansencio did not contest the adequacy of the 

district court=s explanation for his sentence below, thus we 

review for plain error his present claim on appeal. United 

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). When reviewing a 

sentence for reasonableness, we first determine whether the 

district court committed any procedural error, such as failing 

to calculate the guideline range properly, consider the ' 3553(a) 

factors, or explain the sentence adequately, and then decide 

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. Gall v. 

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007). While a district 

court must consider the various ' 3553(a) factors and explain its 

sentence, it need not explicitly reference ' 3553 or discuss 

every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes 

a sentence within the guideline range. United States v. 

Johnson, 455 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, the district 

2 
Court followed the necessary procedural steps. It is clear from 

the record that the district court considered the ' 3553(a) 

factors with respect to this defendant and that it considered 

Flores-Ansencio=s arguments at sentencing. There was no need for 

further elaboration by the district court. See United States v. 

Montes-Pineda, 436 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006). 

The appeals court must also consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. A 

sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, as 

Flores-Ansencio=s sentence was, may be accorded a presumption of 

reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 

2462 (2007). Flores-Ansencio does not contest the calculation 

of his guideline range, and the district court sentenced him 

within the properly-calculated range. As noted, the district 

court imposed the sentence after considering the arguments at 

the sentencing hearing, including Flores-Ansencio=s request for 

leniency, and the ' 3553(a) factors. The district court 

expressly rejected his request for leniency, noting that FloresAnsencio had failed to take advantage of the numerous 

opportunities for leniency previously received and that his 

previous deportation did not deter him from re-entering the 

country illegally. We conclude that his sentence was 

reasonable. 

3 
4 

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the 

district court. 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