Opinion
No. 07-4368.
Submitted: September 13, 2007.
Decided: September 18, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00501-LMB).
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Anne M. Chapman, Meghan Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Olivia Hussey, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Mario Cedillos-Guzman pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5); 924(a)(2) (2000). Cedillos-Guzman was sentenced by the district court to twelve months' imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Cedillos-Guzman contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper weight to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, as well as provide a statement of reasons for selecting a twelve-month sentence. However, the district court appropriately calculated the advisory guideline range and considered it in conjunction with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and § 3553(a). See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2054, 164 L.Ed.2d 804 (2006). Cedillos-Guzman's twelve-month sentence, which is at the lowest end of the applicable guideline range and below the statutory maximum, is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-65, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Though the court concededly failed to explicitly discuss § 3553(a) factors on the record, we conclude it does not render Cedillos-Guzman's sentence unreasonable. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468-69; United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). We note that the court heard extensive arguments from the parties relating to the potential applicability of § 3553(a) factors.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny as moot Cedillos-Guzman's motion to remand. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.