UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4589
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EPIFANIO FLORES, a/k/a Pifas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00332-TDS-2)
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason G. Goins, Asheboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley
Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Epifanio Flores appeals the 150-month sentence imposed
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Flores
argues on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable because the
district court granted him only a forty percent reduction in
accordance with the Government’s motion under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2010) instead of the fifty percent
reduction he requested at sentencing. We affirm.
Flores does not challenge the district court’s
computation of his Guidelines range or the district court’s
selection of sentence before application of the § 5K1.1
departure. Flores only challenges the extent of the district
court’s departure. However, the extent of the district court’s
§ 5K1.1 departure is generally unreviewable on appeal. See
United States v. Shaw, 313 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2002) (“we do
not have the authority to review the extent to which a district
court departs downward unless the departure decision resulted in
a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an
incorrect application of the Guidelines”).
To the extent Flores otherwise challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence, he points to no
sentencing factor that rebuts the presumption of reasonableness
2
for his below-Guidelines sentence. We therefore conclude that
his sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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