United States of America v. Aracely Lopez Gomez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4938
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARACELY LOPEZ GOMEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-WO-2)
Submitted: August 3, 2009 Decided: August 21, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Aracely Lopez Gomez was convicted after pleading
guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and was
sentenced to forty-six months of incarceration and a five-year
term of supervised release. On appeal, Gomez argues that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing a term of
supervised release significantly greater than necessary to
achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
Finding no error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence and term of supervised
release, the district court must calculate the appropriate
advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, , 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591.
Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed
by this court on appeal to be reasonable. United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Gomez, appropriately treating the guidelines
as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
guidelines range and supervised release term, performing an
individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts
of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the
sentence. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.
2009). Here, in selecting a five-year term of supervised
release, the court articulated the relevant factors, including
the need to protect the public after Gomez’s release from a low-
end guidelines sentence, to deter her from further criminal
activity, and to provide guidance to a young defendant involved
in the distribution of a large quantity of drugs. Gomez’s term
of supervised release is within the guidelines range, USSG
§ 5D1.2(a)(1), and is thus presumed reasonable on appeal. Gomez
offers no persuasive argument to rebut that presumption. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen term of supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 of 3 --