United States v. Jacqueline Alonzo-Artega

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 26, 2023
• Docket: 22-4271
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JACQUELINE GUADALUPE ALONZO-ARTEGA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00227-NCT-4)

Submitted: June 30, 2023 Decided: July 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Tanner Lawrence Kroeger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Guadalupe Alonzo-Artega (Artega) pled guilty to conspiracy to commit

Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court calculated an

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, granted a downward variance,

and sentenced Artega to 68 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Artega’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising as an issue for review whether the district court

erred in imposing an unreasonable sentence. Artega was informed of her right to file a pro

se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief.

We affirm.

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” United States v.

Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted), for

procedural and substantive reasonableness, United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668

(4th Cir. 2020). In evaluating procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district

court properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity

to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 668-69. When rendering a sentence,

the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,

state in open court the reasons supporting its chosen sentence, address the parties’

nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence and, if it rejects them, explain why

in a manner allowing for meaningful appellate review. United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances to determine

whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A sentence that is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United

States v. Bennett, 986 F.3d 389, 401 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“On appeal, such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (cleaned up).

We conclude that Artega’s sentence is not unreasonable. The district court correctly

calculated Artega’s Guidelines range, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue, and heard

allocution from Artega. The court then granted Artega’s request for a downward variance

and sentenced her to 68 months’ imprisonment. The court reasoned that this sentence was

sufficient but not greater than necessary to provide just punishment for a serious offense

and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct in light of Artega’s history and

characteristics, while also accounting for her early and truthful cooperation with law

enforcement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B). This explanation adequately

supports Artega’s sentence.

Counsel suggests that Artega’s sentence is unreasonable given the nature of her

criminal history, her cooperation with law enforcement, and her dependence on her co-

defendant and argues that a sentence of 53 months would not have been unreasonable.

Because the district court properly relied on relevant § 3553(a) considerations in granting

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4271 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

Artega’s request for a downward variance, we see no reason to second guess the

presumption that Artega’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See

Bennett, 986 F.3d at 401.

In accordance with Anders, we also have reviewed the entire record in this case and

have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Artega, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Artega requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on Artega.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED