United States v. Beverly NelsonUnited States v. Beverly Nelson
Case Information
*1 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, HALL & CHO, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Paul K. Nitze, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Beverly Elaine Nelson of
illegally reentering the United States after having been
removed, in violation of
Nelson first argues on appeal that there was
insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt
because, although the Government provided Nelson’s warrant of
deportation, the immigration official who signed that warrant
did not testify at trial. We review a district court’s decision
to deny a
In order to convict Nelson of illegal reentry, the
Government was required to prove that “(1) [she] is an alien who
was previously arrested and deported, (2) that [she] reentered
the United States voluntarily, and (3) that [she] failed to
secure the express permission of the Attorney General to
return.” United States v. Espinoza-Leon,
Nelson next argues that the district court erred in denying her request for a downward departure for cultural assimilation. Under the Guidelines, a departure for cultural assimilation may be warranted:
in cases where (A) the defendant formed cultural ties primarily with the United States from having resided continuously in the United States from childhood, (B) those cultural ties provided the primary motivation for the defendant’s illegal reentry or continued presence in the United States, and (C) such a departure is not likely to increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8 (2012). However, “[w]e lack the authority to review a sentencing court’s denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so.” United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not so misunderstand its authority to depart and therefore this court may not review this argument.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED