US v. Armando Medina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00308-JRS-9 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999009825].. [12-4232]

Appeal: 12-4232

Doc: 54

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ARMANDO GONZALEZ MEDINA, a/k/a Pablito, a/k/a FNU LNU,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00308-JRS-9)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Decided:

December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin F. Brooks, EDWIN F. BROOKS, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Michael R.
Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4232

Doc: 54

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Armando Gonzalez Medina appeals his 84-month sentence
imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to a racketeering conspiracy
and

a

conspiracy

to

possess,

identification documents.

produce,

and

transfer

false

The district court imposed a variance

sentence above the 27-33 month advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range.

On

appeal,

Gonzalez

Medina

contends

that

his

upward

variance is unreasonable because the district court erroneously
relied

upon

factual

findings

unsupported

by

evidence.

We

affirm.
We

review

a

district

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States,

U.S.

552

procedural

error

38,
and

51

court's

Gall

standard.

(2007).

abuses

sentence

its

A

district

sentencing

under

the

v.

United

court

commits

discretion

if

it

See id.

selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.

Whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable is considered
“in

light

of

the

totality

of

the

circumstances.”

States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 409 (4th Cir. 2012).
sentence

that

deviates

significantly

from

the

United

A variance
advisory

Guidelines range is not presumptively unreasonable and is still
reviewed

under

an

abuse

of

discretion

standard.

United

States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 106 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 133 S.Ct. 274 (2012).

2

Appeal: 12-4232

Doc: 54

The

Filed: 12/26/2012

district

findings

that

lengthy

period

against

members

compared

court

Pg: 3 of 4

varied

upwards

Gonzalez

Medina’s

criminal

of

and

he

time

of

Gonzalez

that

competing

participated

sentence

upon

conduct

organizations.

Medina’s

based

to

a

spanned
in

The

its
a

violence

court

also

co-conspirator’s

sentence in order to avoid unwarranted disparities.

Most of

Gonzalez Medina’s appellate brief attempts to show that there
was

insufficient

evidence

tying

Gonzalez

committed by members of his conspiracy.
court

explicitly

declined

to

find

Medina

to

a

murder

However, the district

that

Gonzalez

Medina

was

involved with the murder; instead, the court found that Gonzalez
Medina

participated

in

violent

acts

in

furtherance

that

Gonzalez

of

the

conspiracy.
Considering

the

evidence

Medina’s

criminal cell had a history of violent acts against competitors
and that Gonzalez Medina was recorded speaking of “getting rid
of the competition” and “kick[ing] those guys’ asses,” we find
that the district court’s conclusion that Gonzalez Martinez was
involved in “disciplining or dealing with competitors” was not
clearly erroneous.

See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470

U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (holding that district court’s account of
evidence must be “plausible”).

Further, we do not perceive any

other reason to conclude that, in light of the totality of the
circumstances,

the

district

court’s
3

chosen

sentence

was

not

Appeal: 12-4232

Doc: 54

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

rooted in reason.

See United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 166

(4th Cir. 2008).

Under the deference due to the district court,

we

conclude

that

Gonzalez

Martinez’s

84-month

sentence

is

substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

will

not

in

aid

the
the

material
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4