US v. Leonardo Hector Rosado

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00011-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998716476].. [10-5319]

Appeal: 10-5319

Document: 39

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEONARDO HECTOR ROSADO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00011-WO-1)

Submitted:

October 27, 2011

Decided:

November 4, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5319

Document: 39

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Leonardo

Hector

Rosado

was

charged

with

possession

with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006).
guilty

and

the

imprisonment.

Following a jury trial, Rosado was found

district

court

sentenced

Rosado timely appealed.

him

to

121

months’

We affirm.

On appeal, Rosado makes three claims: (1) the district
court

erred

in

giving

the

jury

an

Allen *

charge

instead

of

declaring a mistrial; (2) the district court erred in applying a
two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice; and
(3) Rosado’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006).
This Court reviews a district court’s decision to give
an Allen charge and its content for abuse of discretion.
States v. Hylton, 349 F.3d 781, 788 (4th Cir. 2003).

United

An Allen

charge is generally given to a deadlocked jury to inform jurors
that there is no reason to believe another jury would be better
able to decide the case, that it is important that a unanimous
verdict

be

reached,

and

that

all

jurors

should

*

Rosado does not

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

2

the

United States

opinions of jurors who favor a different result.
v. Burgos, 55 F.3d 933, 935-36 (4th Cir. 1995).

consider

Appeal: 10-5319

Document: 39

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 3 of 5

challenge the content of the district court’s Allen charge; only
the court’s decision to issue the charge rather than to declare
a mistrial.
We
decision

in

accord
such

great

matters

deference
because

the

to

the

judge

trial

“is

in

judge’s
the

best

position to assess . . . whether the jury will be able to reach
a just verdict if it continues to deliberate.”

Renico v. Lett,

130

district

S.

Ct.

1855,

1863

(2010).

Here,

the

court

carefully explained its exercise of that discretion, noting that
the jury had not spent many hours deliberating before declaring
its impasse, that it was “still early in the process,” and that
“further deliberations . . . w[ould] be appropriate.”

Because

we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s wellreasoned

decision

to

issue

an

Allen

charge

rather

than

to

declare a mistrial, we reject Rosado’s argument.
Next, Rosado contends that the obstruction of justice
sentencing
did

not

enhancement
support

such

was

inappropriate

because

an

enhancement.

When

the

evidence

reviewing

the

district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we
review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de
novo.

United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.

2010).

A two-level enhancement under § 3C1.1 is warranted if a

defendant “willfully obstructed or impeded” the prosecution of
the offense of conviction with conduct relevant to that offense.
3

Appeal: 10-5319

Document: 39

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

Page: 4 of 5

Commission of perjury constitutes such an

obstruction.

Id.

at

cmt.

obstruction

enhancement

based

n.4(b).
upon

Application

perjurious

trial

of

the

testimony

requires a finding by the sentencing court that the defendant,
while under oath, “(1) gave false testimony; (2) concerning a
material matter; (3) with the willful intent to deceive (rather
than

as

a

result

of

confusion,

mistake,

or

faulty

memory).”

United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425, 428 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002).
“The

sentencing

perjurious
element

court

statements

of

perjury

also
and

or

must

make

that

specifically

a

finding

encompasses

predicates for a finding of perjury.”
marks omitted).

identify

either
all

of

as
the

to

the
each

factual

Id. (internal quotation

Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that the district court did not err in finding certain portions
of Rosado’s trial testimony constituted obstruction of justice
under these standards.
Lastly,
substantively
sentence

contends

unreasonable.

for

standard.

Rosado

We

reasonableness

that

review

under

an

his
a

sentence

district

is

court’s

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see

also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir.
2007).

Upon

significant

ensuring

procedural

that

the

errors,

we

sentencing
consider

court
the

made

no

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
4

Appeal: 10-5319

Document: 39

totality

of

the

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 5 of 5

Gall,

circumstances.

552

U.S.

at

51.

We

presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable.
(4th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193

That presumption may be rebutted by a showing

“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d

§ 3553(a) factors.”

375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude Rosado has
failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence within the
Guidelines range — indeed, at the bottom end of that range — is
substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

Court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5