US v. Louis Amaro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00003-RJC-14 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999207658].. [13-4244]

Appeal: 13-4244

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS JAVIER AMARO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00003-RJC-14)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Decided:

October 3, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4244

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Louis

Javier

Amaro

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (“Count Two”),
and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006) (“Count Three”).

The district court

sentenced him to a total of ninety months in prison, four years
of

supervised

release,

and

a

$200

special

assessment.

On

appeal, counsel for Amaro filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
district

issues

court

recommendations

for

appeal,

improperly
and

but

rejected

attributed

five

questioning
the

whether

plea

kilograms

of

the

agreement’s
cocaine

to

Amaro as relevant conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Amaro has not filed a supplemental pro se brief, despite notice
of

his

right

to

do

so.

We

affirm

Amaro’s

convictions

and

sentence.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district

court

did

not

commit

any

“significant

procedural

error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or
failing

to

adequately

explain

the

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
required

to

“robotically

tick
2

sentence.

Gall

v.

United

The district court is not
through

§

3553(a)’s

every

Appeal: 13-4244

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

subsection.”

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th

Cir. 2006).

However, the district court “must place on the

record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it.
need

not

be

elaborate

or

This individualized assessment

lengthy,

but

it

must

provide

a

rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to

permit

‘meaningful

appellate

review.’”

United

States

v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50 (internal citation and footnote omitted)).
“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court, we

review

for

abuse

of

discretion”

and

will

unless we conclude that the error was harmless.”
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).

“reverse

United States

In assessing the

district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review the
district

court’s

findings

of

fact

for

clear

error.

States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).

United

Only if we

find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.

Carter, 564

F.3d at 328.
At sentencing Amaro objected to the district court’s
consideration of drug quantities in excess of the parties’ joint
recommendation in the plea agreement.

However, pursuant to the

terms of the agreement itself, Amaro’s plea agreement was not
3

Appeal: 13-4244

Doc: 20

binding

on

Filed: 10/03/2013

the

11(c)(1)(B).

district

Pg: 4 of 5

court.

See

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

Moreover, “[t]he district court has a separate

obligation . . . to make independent factual findings regarding
relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.”

United States v.

Love, 134 F.3d 595, 605 (4th Cir. 1998).

We find that the

district court did not clearly err in overruling the objection.
Furthermore,
adequate,

we

find

that

individualized

the

district

explanation

See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.

to

court

support

provided
the

an

sentence.

Our review of the record therefore

leads us to conclude that Amaro’s below-Guidelines sentence was
neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
States

v.

Susi,

below—Guidelines

674

F.3d

278,

sentence

is

289

(4th

entitled

Cir.
to

See United

2012)

(holding

presumption

of

substantive reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Amaro, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Amaro requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Amaro.
4

Appeal: 13-4244

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

5