UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE GARCIA-FLORES, a/k/a Juan Pablosegura-
Paz, a/k/a Juan Domingo Magadan-Torres, a/k/a
Barragan David Flores, a/k/a Sidronio
Andrales-Solis, a/k/a Jose Daniel Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00186-WLO)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Garcia-Flores was sentenced to thirty-two months in
prison after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
unlawful re-entry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). On appeal, Garcia-Flores asserts the
district court erred in sentencing him under an unconstitutional
mandatory guidelines scheme and failed to adequately explain its
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We find that the district court properly applied the
federal sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant
sentencing factors before imposing Garcia-Flores’s sentence. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the sentence
imposed, which Garcia-Flores admits was within a properly
calculated guidelines range, was reasonable. See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding a sentence imposed
within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Garcia-Flores’s 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
- 2 -