Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    United States v. Mario Perez-Sanchez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mario Oliver Perez-Sanchez's conviction and 151-month prison sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The Court found that Perez-Sanchez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively proven by the record and that the district court correctly applied a leadership role sentencing enhancement and the sentence was substantively reasonable. The Court also reviewed additional pro se claims made by Perez-Sanchez and found them without merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Mario Perez-Sanchez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    142 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mario Oliver Perez-Sanchez's conviction and 151-month prison sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The Court found that Perez-Sanchez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively proven by the record and that the district court correctly applied a leadership role sentencing enhancement and the sentence was substantively reasonable. The Court also reviewed additional pro se claims made by Perez-Sanchez and found them without merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-4037

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mario Oliver Perez-Sanchez's conviction and 151-month prison sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The Court found that Perez-Sanchez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively proven by the record and that the district court correctly applied a leadership role sentencing enhancement and the sentence was substantively reasonable. The Court also reviewed additional pro se claims made by Perez-Sanchez and found them without merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    142 views5 pages

    United States v. Mario Perez-Sanchez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mario Oliver Perez-Sanchez's conviction and 151-month prison sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The Court found that Perez-Sanchez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively proven by the record and that the district court correctly applied a leadership role sentencing enhancement and the sentence was substantively reasonable. The Court also reviewed additional pro se claims made by Perez-Sanchez and found them without merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-4037

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    MARIO OLIVER PEREZ-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Catfish,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00077-MR-DLH-3)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2015

    Decided:

    October 6, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy


    Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Oliver Perez-Sanchez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
    possess

    with

    intent

    to

    distribute

    and

    distribute

    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2012).


    district

    court

    sentenced

    Perez-Sanchez

    imprisonment and he now appeals.

    to

    151

    months

    The
    of

    Appellate counsel has filed a

    brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    questioning
    assistance

    whether
    and

    substantively

    trial

    whether

    the

    reasonable.

    counsel

    rendered

    sentence

    is

    Perez-Sanchez

    ineffective

    procedurally
    filed

    supplemental brief raising additional issues. *

    pro

    and
    se

    Finding no error,

    we affirm.
    Appellate
    rendered

    counsel

    ineffective

    ineffective

    assistance

    first

    questions

    assistance.
    of

    To

    counsel,

    whether

    trial

    prove

    defendant

    counsel

    claim
    must

    of
    show

    (1) that counsels performance was deficient, and (2) that


    the

    deficient

    performance

    prejudiced

    the

    defense.

    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).


    second

    prong

    of

    the

    test

    in

    the

    context

    of

    Under the
    conviction

    following a guilty plea, a defendant can show prejudice only by


    demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsels

    We have reviewed the issues raised in Perez-Sanchezs pro


    se supplemental brief and conclude they lack merit.

    errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
    on going to trial.

    Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

    Moreover, we may address a claim of ineffective assistance


    on

    direct

    appeal

    conclusively
    Baldovinos,

    only

    appears
    434

    on

    F.3d

    thoroughly

    reviewed

    assistance

    does

    the

    the

    record.

    233,

    the

    not

    if

    239

    record

    lawyers

    (4th
    and

    conclusively

    ineffectiveness

    United

    States

    Cir.

    2006).

    conclude

    that

    appear

    on

    the

    We

    v.
    have

    ineffective
    record.

    We

    therefore decline to address this claim on direct appeal.


    Counsel next questions whether the district court erred in
    applying an enhancement for a leadership role in the conspiracy
    under

    the

    Sentencing

    Guidelines.

    Counsel

    further

    whether the sentence is substantively reasonable.


    sentence

    for

    standard.

    reasonableness,

    applying

    an

    abuse

    questions

    We review a
    of

    discretion

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see

    also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015).
    In so doing, we first examine the sentence for any procedural
    error,

    Lymas,

    781

    F.3d

    at

    111-12,

    and

    then

    consider

    the

    substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if the sentence is


    within

    the

    Guidelines

    reasonableness.
    (2007)

    range,

    we

    apply

    presumption

    of

    See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59

    (upholding

    presumption

    of

    Guidelines sentence).

    reasonableness

    for

    within

    In addition, in reviewing the district courts calculations


    under

    the

    Guidelines,

    we

    review

    the

    district

    courts

    legal

    conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.


    United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).

    We will find clear error

    only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite
    and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

    Id. at

    631 (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Under the Guidelines, a four-level enhancement applies to
    the offense level if the defendant was an organizer or leader of
    a criminal organization that involved five or more participants,
    or was otherwise extensive.

    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

    3B1.1(a); see also United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 184
    (4th Cir. 2009).

    The district court must find the enhancement

    applicable by a preponderance of the evidence.

    United States v.

    Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 803 (4th Cir. 2009).

    We conclude that the

    district

    advisory

    range.

    court

    correctly

    calculated

    the

    Guidelines

    In addition, Perez-Sanchez has failed to overcome the

    presumption of reasonableness applied to his within-Guidelines


    sentence.
    We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
    requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.
    court.

    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district


    This court requires that counsel inform Perez-Sanchez,
    4

    in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the


    United States for further review.
    that

    petition

    be

    filed,

    but

    If Perez-Sanchez requests

    counsel

    believes

    that

    such

    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court


    for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on Perez-Sanchez.


    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like