Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 13-4759
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cr-00112-GRA-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
May 7, 2014
PER CURIAM:
Sivianny
Arce-Campos
appeals
his
conviction
and
42
U.S.C.
408(a)(7)(B)
(2006),
and
aggravated
identity
On
appeal,
Arce-Campos
counsel
has
filed
brief
follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.
court
improper
insufficient
factors,
committed
and
no
inadequate
of
v.
United
calculation
consideration
Gall
the
of
18
the
explanation
procedural
error,
Guidelines
range,
U.S.C.
of
the
3553(a)
sentence
(2012)
imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
575 (4th Cir. 2010).
novo,
and
States v.
unpreserved
Strieper,
arguments
666
F.3d
for
288,
plain
292
(4th
error.
Cir.
United
2012).
To
integrity
proceedings.
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
Guidelines
to
the
involving
provide
base
offense
ten
or
more
for
level
two-level
applicable
victims.
to
upward
a
fraud
U.S.
Sentencing
We sought
whether
the
district
court
plainly
briefs,
we
conclude
any
erred
in
imposing
an
error
in
imposing
this
explained
explaining
questions
the
sentence,
basis
the
whether
for
the
its
district
district
chosen
court
court
sentence.
must
In
conduct
an
Lynn,
592
F.3d
omitted).
The
court
is
at
584
not
(internal
required
to
quotation
marks
robotically
tick
388,
omitted).
it
395
(4th
Cir.
2011)
(internal
quotation
marks
considered
the
3553(a)
factors
as
they
apply
to
the
States
v.
Montes-Pineda,
445
F.3d
375,
380
(4th
Cir.
2006).
We find no error in the district courts explanation.
The
court
specifically
indicated
its
consideration
of
the
public.
Although
the
court
did
not
expressly
address
explanation
was
sufficiently
We conclude the
detailed
to
provide
an
This
review.
but
If
counsel
Arce-Campos
believes
requests
that
such
that
petition
petition
would
be
be
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED