UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIO NOYOLA-CAMPOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00279-D-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding,
United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joe Exum, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julio Noyola-Campos pled guilty to illegal reentry, 8
U.S.C. § 1326 (2006), and was sentenced to a term of fifty-four
months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, contending that
the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him near
the high end of the advisory guideline range. We affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We must first ensure that the district court did not commit any
“significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly
calculate the applicable guidelines range, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. Noyola-Campos
does not claim that any procedural error occurred.
If no procedural error occurred, we then consider the
reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard. Id. Noyola-Campos contends that the 16-level
increase he received for his previous deportation after being
convicted of a firearms offense resulted in an “artificially
high” guideline range. However, the range was correctly
calculated, as Noyola-Campos conceded at sentencing, and thus is
not artificially high. He also claims that the district court
abused its discretion by sentencing him at the high end of the
range in light of his prior conviction because he was no
2
different from other defendants who reenter after committing a
firearms offense. The court explained that deterrence was its
chief reason for imposing a sentence toward the high end of the
range because Noyola-Campos had not been deterred from illegally
returning by his previous federal prosecution.
A sentence imposed within a properly calculated
guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness on
appeal. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008);
see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007)
(upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-
guidelines sentence). We are satisfied that Noyola-Campos has
failed to rebut the presumption. We therefore affirm the
sentence imposed by the district court. 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