UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4368
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARIO CEDILLOS-GUZMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00501-LMB)
Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Anne M. Chapman,
Meghan Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
Olivia Hussey, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mario Cedillos-Guzman pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5); 924(a)(2) (2000). Cedillos-Guzman was sentenced
by the district court to twelve months’ imprisonment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Cedillos-Guzman contends his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper weight
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, as well as provide a statement
of reasons for selecting a twelve-month sentence. However, the
district court appropriately calculated the advisory guideline range
and considered it in conjunction with other relevant factors under
the Guidelines and § 3553(a). See United States v. Moreland, 437
F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
Cedillos-Guzman’s twelve-month sentence, which is at the lowest end
of the applicable guideline range and below the statutory maximum, is
therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007). Though
the court concededly failed to explicitly discuss § 3553(a) factors
on the record, we conclude it does not render Cedillos-Guzman’s
sentence unreasonable. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468-69; United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). We note that
- 2 -
the court heard extensive arguments from the parties relating to the
potential applicability of § 3553(a) factors.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny as moot Cedillos-Guzman’s motion to remand. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -