United States of America v. Guadalupe Salazar Mendez

05-5028Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 27, 2006

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5028
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GUADALUPE SALAZAR MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-05-116)
Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 27, 2006
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey B. Welty, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover
Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Guadalupe Salazar Mendez pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by an illegal alien, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2000), and was
sentenced to a term of twelve months imprisonment. Mendez appeals
his sentence, contending that the district court erred in deciding
not to depart downward because of a mistaken belief that it lacked
authority to depart based on Mendez’s voluntary disclosure of the
offense, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.16, p.s. (2004),
and erred in refusing to reduce his offense level to six under USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) on the ground that he possessed the firearm for
lawful sporting purposes. Mendez also argues that his sentence is
unreasonable.
After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record,
and the district court’s ruling in this case, we find no reversible
error in the court’s application of the Guidelines, and we find the
sentence imposed by the district court to be reasonable. We
therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We
deny Mendez’s motion to expedite oral argument, and 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

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.