US v. Roberto Paredes-Gutierrez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00104-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999116271].. [12-4997]

Appeal: 12-4997

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO PAREDES-GUTIERREZ, a/k/a Roberto Ruiz, a/k/a Roberto
Perez, a/k/a Roberto Paredes-Gutierres,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00104-REP-1)
Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:
Circuit

Judges,

and

May 28, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Alison L. Anderson, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4997

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Roberto Paredes-Gutierrez pled guilty to one count of
illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006).
twenty-one-month

sentence

was

at

the

top

of

his

His

properly

calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

On appeal, the

Defendant

not

argues

that

the

district

court

did

adequately

explain its reasons for imposing the sentence and denying his
request for a downward variance sentence.

He also argues for

the first time on appeal that the court’s references to leniency
at sentencing were related to its allegedly mistaken belief that
he could have been charged with illegal reentry after conviction
for an aggravated felony, which carries a twenty-year statutory
maximum.

We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under

a deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 45-46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 578–79 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting abuse of discretion
standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves
a

claim

of

sentencing

error).

We

begin

by

reviewing

the

sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors
as

failing

Sentencing

to

calculate

Guidelines

(or

range,

improperly
treating

calculating)

the

Guidelines

the
as

mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
2

Appeal: 12-4997

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.

Gall, 552

U.S. at 51.
An
sentence.

individualized

explanation

Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576.

must

accompany

every

The court’s explanation need

not be exhaustive, although it 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.’”

United

States

v.

Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United

States,

551

U.S.

338,

356

(2007)).

When

imposing

a

sentence within the Guidelines range, however, the explanation
need not be elaborate or lengthy because Guidelines “sentences
themselves

are

in

many

ways

tailored

to

the

individual

and

reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy.”

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,

271 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
We

hold

that

the

district

court

procedural error alleged by the Defendant.

committed

neither

The district court

correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, and it is
apparent from the court’s discussion that it considered both
parties’ arguments, the motion for a downward variance based on
cultural assimilation, and the § 3553(a) factors and that it had
a reasoned basis for its decision.

The court’s references to

leniency at sentencing do not constitute plain error.
3

See Lynn,

Appeal: 12-4997

592

Doc: 23

F.3d

Filed: 05/28/2013

at

577

unpreserved
Accordingly,
dispense

(stating

claims
we

with

of

affirm
oral

Pg: 4 of 4

plain

error

procedural

the

argument

district
because

standard

applies

sentencing
court’s
the

error).

sentence.

facts

to

and

We
legal

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

AFFIRMED

4