US v. Arturo Medel-Moran

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00093-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998564069].. [10-4114]

Case: 10-4114

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTURO MEDEL-MORAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-JAB-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2011

Decided:

April 8, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-4114

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Arturo Medel-Moran pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in
violation

of

sentenced

8

by

U.S.C.
the

imprisonment.

§ 1326(a),

district

Appellate

(b)(2)

court

counsel

(2006),

to

filed

and

fifty-two
a

brief

he

was

months’

pursuant

to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether
Medel-Moran’s

sentence

is

reasonable.

Counsel

subsequently

filed a supplemental brief, contending that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors and to consider the sentencing argument in the
context of those factors.

The Government asserts that there is

no procedural error because the district court’s explanation is
sufficient.

Alternatively,

the

Government

contends

that

the

error is harmless because defense counsel’s sentencing arguments
are not compelling.

Medel-Moran was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion.
(2007).

This

review

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
requires

consideration

of

both

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
51.

the

Id. at

“Procedural reasonableness evaluates the method used to
2

Case: 10-4114

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

determine a defendant’s sentence.”
Mendoza,

597

“[s]ubstantive

F.3d

212,

216

(4th

reasonableness

Page: 3

United States v. MendozaCir.

examines

2010).
the

In

contrast,

totality

of

the

circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”
This
properly

court

calculated

must
the

assess

advisory

Id.

whether

the

Guidelines

district

range,

court

considered

the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties,

and

sufficiently

explained

the

selected

sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation
must accompany every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because counsel preserved his procedural challenge to
the

sentence

by

arguing

for

a

sentence

different

from

that

received by Medel-Moran, this court’s review is for an abuse of
discretion.
States

v.

See

Lynn,

Hernandez,

592
603

F.3d
F.3d

at

581,

267,

270

583-84;

cf.

United

(4th

Cir.

2010)

(reviewing claim of procedural unreasonableness for plain error
because

defendant

did

sentence he received).

not

argue

for

sentence

different

from

If the district court procedurally erred

and thus abused its discretion, this court must reverse unless
the error is harmless.

Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581, 585.
3

Case: 10-4114

We

Document: 31

conclude

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

that

the

district

Page: 4

court

abused

its

discretion in failing to place on the record an individualized
assessment

of

“Sentencing
reasons

§ 3553(a)

courts

for

Boulware,

the

are

imposing

604

F.3d

§ 3553(c) (2006).

a

832,

factors

relating

statutorily
chosen
837

sentence.”

(4th

Cir.

Medel-Moran.

to

required

to

state

United

2010);

their

States

see

18

v.

U.S.C.

In this case, the sentencing transcript is

devoid of any such explanation.
“[B]ecause there is no indication that the district
court considered the defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments prior to
sentencing him,” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585, and the court did not
explain

its

sentence

under

§ 3553(a),

we

conclude

that

the

procedural error is not harmless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case.

For the reasons set forth, we vacate the

sentence and remand for resentencing.

We, of course, indicate

no view as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon MedelMoran, leaving that determination, in the first instance, to the
district
facts

court.

and

materials

legal
before

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

4