Court Opinion

ID: 9411784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:00:49.099951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:12.504845
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4271

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JACQUELINE GUADALUPE ALONZO-ARTEGA,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00227-NCT-4)

        Submitted: June 30, 2023                                          Decided: July 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Tanner
        Lawrence Kroeger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jacqueline Guadalupe Alonzo-Artega (Artega) pled guilty to conspiracy to commit

        Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court calculated an

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, granted a downward variance,

        and sentenced Artega to 68 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Artega’s counsel has filed

        a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising as an issue for review whether the district court

        erred in imposing an unreasonable sentence. Artega was informed of her right to file a pro

        se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief.

        We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted), for

        procedural and substantive reasonableness, United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668

        (4th Cir. 2020). In evaluating procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district

        court properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity

        to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

        sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 668-69. When rendering a sentence,

        the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,

        state in open court the reasons supporting its chosen sentence, address the parties’

        nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence and, if it rejects them, explain why

        in a manner allowing for meaningful appellate review. United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/26/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive

        reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances to determine

        whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

        satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212

        (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A sentence that is within or below a

        properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United

        States v. Bennett, 986 F.3d 389, 401 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “On appeal, such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is

        unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (cleaned up).

               We conclude that Artega’s sentence is not unreasonable. The district court correctly

        calculated Artega’s Guidelines range, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue, and heard

        allocution from Artega. The court then granted Artega’s request for a downward variance

        and sentenced her to 68 months’ imprisonment. The court reasoned that this sentence was

        sufficient but not greater than necessary to provide just punishment for a serious offense

        and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct in light of Artega’s history and

        characteristics, while also accounting for her early and truthful cooperation with law

        enforcement.    See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B).       This explanation adequately

        supports Artega’s sentence.

               Counsel suggests that Artega’s sentence is unreasonable given the nature of her

        criminal history, her cooperation with law enforcement, and her dependence on her co-

        defendant and argues that a sentence of 53 months would not have been unreasonable.

        Because the district court properly relied on relevant § 3553(a) considerations in granting

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271         Doc: 15     Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        Artega’s request for a downward variance, we see no reason to second guess the

        presumption that Artega’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See

        Bennett, 986 F.3d at 401.

              In accordance with Anders, we also have reviewed the entire record in this case and

        have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Artega, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Artega requests that a petition

        be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

        move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

        that a copy thereof was served on Artega.

              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

                                                    4