UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANGEL ZAMBRANO NATAREN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton
Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00234-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2008 Decided: January 13, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Angel Zambrano Nataren appeals his conviction and
forty-one month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006). Zambrano Nataren’s sole
argument is that the district court erred when it increased his
offense level by sixteen levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2007). Finding
no error, we affirm.
Although Zambrano Nataren generally complained at
sentencing that he was unhappy with his Guidelines range because
it was greater than he anticipated, Zambrano Nataren filed no
objections to his presentence investigation report (“PSR”) and
specifically informed the district court that he had no
objections to the PSR. Because Zambrano Nataren did not raise
his claim of error before the district court, we review for
plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32
(1993).
To establish plain error, Zambrano Nataren was
required to show that an error occurred, that it was plain, and
that it affected his substantial rights. See id. at 732. We
have reviewed the record and have considered Zambrano Nataren’s
arguments. We conclude that it was not error, plain or
otherwise, for the district court to adopt the PSR’s calculation
2
of Zambrano Nataren’s Guidelines range and sentence him to the
bottom of the properly calculated range. See United States v.
Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption
of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence).
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