US v. Raul Martinez-Martinez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAUL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00290-MR-1)
April 27, 2010
May 14, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, Steven Slawinski, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Raul Martinez-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry of a deported alien who was an aggravated felon and received an eighty-nine-month sentence. Counsel has filed an
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief stating that he has discerned no meritorious issues, but that the sentence may be procedurally unreasonable because the court did not
adequately explain its reasoning for the sentence, including the refusal to grant a downward variance based on the community, family, and cultural connections Martinez-Martinez established in the United States and the danger he would encounter in
returning to his home country of El Salvador.
We agree that
there is procedural error in determining the sentence and remand for resentencing, but affirm the conviction. Counsel adequately asserts the that the district court did not by
Sentencing Guidelines range was 77-96 months of imprisonment. The district court heard from Martinez-Martinez's counsel that it would be dangerous for Martinez-Martinez to return to El
Salvador and that he has attempted to be law abiding while in the United States. Martinez-Martinez has The court heard from the Government that illegally reentered the United States
three other times, that his previous sentence for the same type 2
seventy-eight from repeating
months the same
Martinez-Martinez was arrested on this occasion after driving while severely drunk and hitting three cars, and fleeing the site of the accident. statement by After hearing argument by counsel and a the court variance denied without
Martinez-Martinez, motion for a
The court then pronounced its sentence and reasoning,
stating only that it had considered all the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) in determining the sentence. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of review. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552
The first step in this review requires the
court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. (4th Cir. 2008). (or United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 Procedural errors include the "failing to
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
"[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district court, we review for abuse of discretion" and will reverse if such an abuse of discretion is found unless the court can
conclude "that the error was harmless." 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Lynn,
For instance, "the district
court must state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence [and] set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that [the sentencing judge] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) United States v. Carter, (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
If "an aggrieved party sufficiently
alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation" by drawing arguments from § 3553
"for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed," the party sufficiently "preserves its claim." 578. Lynn, 592 F.3d at
When counsel requests a sentence at the bottom of the Id. at 581.
Guidelines range or below, the error is preserved.
In a post-Lynn case, United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010), we explained that "a defendant need only ask for a sentence outside the range calculated by the court prior to sentencing in order to preserve his claim for appellate
595 F.3d at 546. 4
We arguments in
Martinez-Martinez's his claim of
procedural sentencing error on appeal.
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581.
In particular, Martinez-Martinez's counsel requested a downward variance from the Guidelines range. These arguments
"sufficiently alert[ed] the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation addressing those
Id. at 578.
Therefore, we review any procedural
sentencing error for abuse of discretion and reverse unless the error was harmless. Id. at 579.
The district court erred because it failed to explain why it imposed the chosen sentence. See id. at 581-82. The
court stated, without discussion, that it took into account the § 3553 sentencing factors. factors raised by It did not address the mitigating nor provide any other
reason for choosing the sentence imposed. cannot presume that the district court
Moreover, this court simply adopted the
The error was not harmless because the
district court's lack of explanation for imposing this condition resulted in "a record insufficient to permit even routine review for substantive reasonableness." Id. at 582 (citation and
quotation marks omitted). We therefore affirm the conviction, but vacate the
sentence and remanding for resentencing. 5
In accordance with
Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?