US v. Carlos Fuentes-Ramirez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00480-GBL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998548306].. [10-4484]

US v. Carlos Fuentes-Ramirez

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS EDUARDO FUENTES-RAMIREZ, a/k/a Fuentes Carlos Ramirez, a/k/a Carlos Edward Rameriz, a/k/a Juan Doe, a/k/a Jose Carlos Fuentes R, a/k/a Alfredo Fuentes, a/k/a Carlos Alfredo, a/k/a Jose E. Rodriquez, a/k/a Alfredo Calderon, a/k/a Carlos Edwardo Ramirez, a/k/a Carlos Edwardo Rameriz, Carlos Edward Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00480-GBL-1)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Geremy C. Kamens, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, William H. Jones, II, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Carlos eight-month Eduardo Fuentes-Ramirez for one appeals of his fortyre-

prison

sentence

count

illegally

entering the United States after an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Fuentes-

Ramirez contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court on failed the to record adequately at the place an

individualized hearing.

assessment

sentencing

Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard. (2007). for

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

The first step in this review requires us to inspect reasonableness no by ensuring procedural that the district such as

procedural committed

court

significant

errors,

improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. 837-38 (4th Cir. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, We then consider the substantive

2010).

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On

appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Allen, 491

That presumption may be rebutted

by a showing "that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 3

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 4

against the § 3553(a) factors." 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks

omitted). When correctly thereafter whatever sentencing, the a district court should range argue States first and for v.

calculate give the

applicable the

Guidelines to

parties deem

opportunity

sentence

they

appropriate.

United

Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010).

The sentencing

court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors and conduct an individualized assessment of the facts before it. 270-71. The district court's explanation for See id. at imposing a

sentence must be "sufficient `to satisfy the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal

decisionmaking authority.'"

Boulware, 604 F.3d at 837 (quoting But when a

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).

sentencing court decides to simply apply the Guidelines, "doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation." U.S. at 356. Fuentes-Ramirez court's explanation could not an was apply argues on appeal in two that the district (1) and (2) the was the that Rita, 551

deficient to many

respects: defendants and

explanation therefore explanation

other

individualized to address

assessment;

failed

Fuentes-Ramirez's 4

argument

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 5

one of his prior convictions was effectively "double counted" because history it elevated the both U.S. his offense level and his criminal (2009).

under

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

Fuentes-Ramirez preserved these procedural issues for appeal by arguing for a sentence more lenient than that ultimately imposed by the district court. 578 (4th Cir. 2010). It is true that many other defendants who are brought before the district courts on charges of illegal re-entry are in similar life circumstances as Fuentes-Ramirez. that the district court's explanation of its But the fact reasons for See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,

imposing Fuentes-Ramirez's sentence may apply equally to other similarly-situated defendants does not defeat the

individualization of the court's assessment.

It is just these

sorts of garden-variety scenarios that--when a within-Guidelines sentence "because is imposed--necessitate sentences less extensive are in explanation many ways

guidelines

themselves

tailored to the individual and reflect approximately two decades of close attention Johnson, Martin v. to 587 federal F.3d 625, sentencing 639 (4th S. policy." Cir. Ct. 2009), 2128 United cert.

States v. denied,

United

States,

130

(2010),

(internal quotation marks omitted). The district court's explanation here was not the sort of generic, universally-applicable 5 recitation we found

Case: 10-4484

Document: 28

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 6

insufficient in United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009). It was offense-specific, made mention of the

defendant's personal background, and specifically dealt with his criminal history. A district court is not required to

"robotically tick through § 3553(a)'s every subsection," United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), nor must it explicitly state its rationale for the rejection of every unsuccessful argument brought before it. See Rita, 551 U.S. at

356 ("Sometimes a judicial opinion responds to every argument; sometimes it does not . . . . respect, to the judge's own The law leaves much, in this professional judgment."). The

downward departure granted by the district court at sentencing essentially mooted, or at the least substantially lessened,

Fuentes-Ramirez's double-counting argument and the argument went unmentioned at the sentencing hearing. silence on this contention does not The district court's render the sentence

unreasonable. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6