Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, v. Leyda REY-GONZALEZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-01
Citations: 326 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 08-1423
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Leyda REY-GONZALEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, v. Leyda REY-GONZALEZ, Appellant.
No. 08-1423.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Feb. 3, 2009.
Opinion filed June 1, 2009.
David E. Troyer, Esq., Robert A. Zauz-mer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
Salvatore C. Adamo, Esq., Easton, PA, for Appellant.
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Leyda Rey-Gonzalez appeals from a judgment of sentence after pleading guilty to violating five conditions of supervised release. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). We review the District Court's sentence for "reasonableness with regard to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." United, States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir.2007). Reasonableness review entails an inquiry into "whether the trial court abused its discretion." Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). We will affirm.
We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we describe only as necessary to explain our decision.
Rey-Gonzalez argues that her below-Guidelines sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by 42 months of supervised release was unreasonable because she had made substantial improvements in her life and posed no danger to society. The District Court, however, adequately accounted for these circumstances as well as the other § 3553 factors. We have reviewed the District Court's sentencing colloquy and written judgment and found no error.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.