UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ULICES ALIDER RIVAS-CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00247-WO-1)
Submitted: December 30, 2011 Decided: January 11, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ulices Alider Rivas-Cruz appeals the forty-one month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of
illegally reentering the United States after having been removed
as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2006). Rivas-Cruz argues that the district court erred
by including in his criminal history calculation a DWI
conviction for which the evidence was insufficient to establish
that he was the person convicted of the offense. Finding no
error, we affirm.
In calculating the advisory Guidelines range, the
district court’s factual findings must be supported by the
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Morris, 429
F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). This court reviews the district
court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560 (4th Cir. 2007). Records of the
conviction in question showed Rivas-Cruz’s name, address, date
of birth, and driver’s license number. Against this background
of reliability, the district court was not required to credit
Rivas-Cruz’s unsworn explanation that he was the victim of
identity theft, especially given the unlikelihood of the thief
having returned to court to plead guilty.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3