US v. Hugo Estrada
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00024-MR-DLH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999124011]. [12-4975]
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HUGO ALEJANDRO ESTRADA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00024-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted:
May 20, 2013
Decided:
June 6, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David G. Belser,
for Appellant.
D.
Pritchard,
Asheville, North
BELSER & PARKE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina,
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, John
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Hugo Alejandro Estrada pled guilty to illegal reentry
of
a
previously
deported
§ 1326(a) (2006).
alien,
in
violation
of
8
U.S.C.
The district court sentenced him to sixteen
months’
imprisonment,
advisory
Sentencing
a
variance
Guidelines
of
nine
range.
months
On
above
appeal,
the
Estrada
challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[ ] under
a
deferential
States,
552
abuse-of-discretion
U.S.
38,
41
consideration
of
both
reasonableness
of
reasonableness
evaluates
a
standard.”
(2007).
the
the
Id.
method
court
properly
considered
the
range,
analyzed
any
review
and
at
v.
to
requires
substantive
51.
used
United
“Procedural
determine
a
United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
district
This
procedural
sentence.
defendant’s sentence.”
Gall
18
arguments
We must assess whether the
calculated
U.S.C.
§
presented
the
advisory
3553(a)
by
(2006)
the
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Guidelines
factors,
parties,
and
Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
Estrada first challenges the procedural aspect of his
sentence on the ground that the district court failed to provide
2
Appeal: 12-4975
an
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
individualized
sentence.
assessment
Pg: 3 of 7
when
it
imposed
the
variant
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on
the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
An
extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate
court is satisfied “‘that [the district court] has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
[its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
United States v.
Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
Estrada has preserved the
challenge to this aspect of his sentence “[b]y drawing arguments
from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed.”
2010).
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir.
If the district court abused its discretion, this court
will “reverse unless . . . the error was harmless.”
Id. at 576.
Our review of the sentencing transcript leads us to
conclude
that
the
district
court
sufficiently
explained
the
chosen sentence.
Specifically, the court cited the relevant
§ 3553(a)
it
factors
considered
and
noted
Estrada’s
multiple
illegal reentries and involvement in serious drug trafficking
offenses.
Because the district court adequately explained its
3
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 4 of 7
reasons for the sentence imposed, we conclude that the district
court committed no procedural error.
Because there is no procedural error, we next review
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
Estrada’s
sentence
by
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the
sentence
§ 3553(a).”
it
chose
satisfied
the
standards
Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 216.
set
forth
in
“Where, as here,
the district court decides that a sentence outside the advisory
range is appropriate, [the court] ‘must consider the extent of
the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently
compelling
to
support
the
degree
of
the
variance.’”
United
States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50).
“A major departure from the advisory
range ‘should be supported by a more significant justification
than a minor one.’”
Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50).
Even
if we would have imposed a different sentence, that fact alone
will
not
justify
vacatur
of
the
district
court’s
sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Estrada asserts the district court’s imposition of an
upward variance rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable
because (1) the district court gave significant weight to an
improper factor, namely, a hypothetical Guidelines range that
would have applied to a defendant with a previous conviction for
4
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 5 of 7
an aggravated felony or one who was charged with a more serious
illegal
reentry
offense;
and
(2)
his
case
presents
no
“compelling” justification for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.
Because
Estrada
did
not
raise
any
objection
to
the
court’s explanation of his sentence below, his assertion that
the district court considered an improper factor is reviewed for
plain error.
84
(4th
Cir.
substantive
district
See United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 1832010)
(on
appeal,
unreasonableness
court’s
for
consideration
the
of
where
defendant
first
time
improper
claims
based
factor
on
when
explaining basis for sentence, plain error review applies).
establish
plain
error,
Estrada
must
show
that
1)
the
To
court
erred, 2) the error is clear and obvious, and 3) the error
affected his substantial rights.
U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993).
United States v. Olano, 507
Even when this burden is met, this
court has discretion whether to recognize the error, and should
not do so unless it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
proceedings.”
Id.
at
736
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Here, the district court did not impose an eight-level
enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2.
Estrada’s
circumstances
were
It did, however, consider that
not
far
others who received the enhancement.
removed
from
those
of
Estrada argues that such
consideration was improper and could not serve as the basis for
5
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 6 of 7
an upward departure, particularly when his prior conviction did
not qualify him for the enhancement.
authority
for
district
court
his
assertion
constituted
that
Estrada offers no legal
such
error.
consideration
Furthermore,
his
by
the
argument
ignores the fact that the district court’s upward variance was
grounded in its consideration of other § 3553(a) factors.
The
deported
district
twice
before
court
and
emphasized
that
he
had
Estrada
been
had
been
convicted
of
trafficking in methamphetamine, a dangerous and harmful drug.
The court further noted Estrada’s disregard for the laws of this
country.
avoid
The variance was thus based not only on the need to
unwarranted
sentencing
disparities
among
similarly
situated defendants, but the history and characteristics of the
defendant,
and
the
need
to
afford
adequate
deterrence,
to
protect the public, and to promote respect for the law.
We conclude that the district court adequately tied
its decision to vary upward nine months to the § 3553(a) factors
and that Estrada’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
Thus,
the district court’s decision to depart nine months above the
Guidelines
range
is
supported
by
the
record
and
does
not
constitute an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly,
dispense
with
oral
we
affirm
argument
Estrada’s
because
6
the
sentence.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 12-4975
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 7 of 7
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
7
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?