UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4965
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALDO ALBERTO CRUZ-OCHOA, a/k/a Ronaldo
Lopez-Cruz, a/k/a Ronaldo Cruz, a/k/a Antonio
Lopez, a/k/a Antonio Guadalupe Cruz-Perez,
a/k/a Ronald Cruz-Ochoa, a/k/a Orlando Roberto
Cruz-Ochoa,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00279)
Submitted: April 11, 2007 Decided: May 11, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen
C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas T. Cullen, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronaldo Cruz-Ochoa, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty
to unlawful reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). The district court
sentenced Cruz-Ochoa to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Cruz-Ochoa argues the district court erred in failing to
impose a variance sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006). For the following reasons, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. However, in imposing a sentence
post-Booker, courts still must calculate the applicable guideline
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and § 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,
432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court
will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the
proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Cruz-Ochoa submits that he offered substantial evidence
of rehabilitation following his convictions that enhanced his
criminal history category, and that his sentence is longer than
- 2 -
necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a). However, Cruz-Ochoa’s sentence was within the guideline
range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months and well within the
twenty-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2).
Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline
range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, in light of Cruz-Ochoa’s
mitigation arguments, we find the sentence reasonable. See United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.) (holding that a sentence
within the properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
- 3 -