US v. Florentino Castaneda-Pelaez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00390-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999236767].. [13-4283]

Appeal: 13-4283

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FLORENTINO CASTANEDA-PELAEZ, a/k/a Florentino
Palaez, a/k/a Alejandro Mendoza-Rivielo,

Castanada-

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00390-NCT-1)

Submitted:

October 28, 2013

Decided:

November 8, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4283

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Florentino Castaneda-Pelaez, a native and citizen of
Mexico, appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon his guilty
plea to re-entering the United States after previously being
deported, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006).

Castaneda-Pelaez argues that

his above-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable.

We disagree and

affirm his sentence.
Castaneda-Pelaez

was

first

deported

from

the

United

States in April 1993, following a state court conviction for
assault.
States

Castaneda-Pelaez subsequently returned to the United

and

involving

was

convicted

family

of

members.

three
In

separate

1998,

violent

offenses

Castaneda-Pelaez

was

convicted of illegal re-entry of a deported alien and sentenced
to 10 months’ imprisonment.

He again returned to the United

States and was again convicted of illegal re-entry and received
a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.
deported for a third time in February 2010.

Castaneda-Pelaez was
He was arrested in

North Carolina in September 2011 on unrelated charges, using an
alias.

After he was identified using a fingerprint database,

Castaneda-Pelaez was again charged with illegal re-entry by a
previously deported alien.

He pled guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement.
Based on a total offense level of 10 and a criminal
history category of III, Castaneda-Pelaez’s advisory Guidelines
2

Appeal: 13-4283

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

range was 10 to 16 months’ imprisonment.

However, the district

court granted the Government’s request for an upward variance,
sentencing Castaneda-Pelaez to 24 months’ imprisonment.
We
deferential
States,

review

sentences

for

abuse-of-discretion

552

U.S.

38,

41,

reasonableness

standard.”

51

(2007).

Gall

This

“under
v.

review

a

United
entails

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural
district

reasonableness,
court

properly

this

Id. at 51.
court

calculated

In determining

considers

the

whether

defendant’s

the

advisory

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an

appropriate

sentence,

considered

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
at 49-51.
error,

Id.

If the sentence is free of significant procedural

this

Court

reviews

it

for

substantive

reasonableness,

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”

Id.

at 51.
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,”
United

States

(internal

v.

Carter,

quotation

marks

564

F.3d

and

325,

emphasis

328

(4th

omitted),

Cir.
and

2009)
must

“adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate

review

sentencing.”

and

to

promote

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
3

the

perception

of

fair

An extensive explanation is

Appeal: 13-4283

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

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

decisionmaking authority.’”

exercising

[its]

own

legal

United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d

495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
that

falls

outside

of

When a district court imposes a sentence
the

applicable

Guidelines

range,

this

Court considers “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably
both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and
with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing
range.”

United States v. Hernandez–Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,

123 (4th Cir. 2007).

In conducting this review, this court

“must give due deference to the district court’s decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the
variance.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Our review of the record discloses that the district

court provided an adequate explanation for the variant sentence
imposed.

Considered in the context of the entire sentencing

hearing, the district court’s statements provide a sufficient
explanation to satisfy this Court that it had “considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.”
604

F.3d

832,

837

(4th

Cir.

2010)

States, 552 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
4

United States v. Boulware,
(quoting

Rita

v.

United

Specifically, the court

Appeal: 13-4283

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

identified Castaneda-Pelaez’s violent criminal history as well
as his prior incarcerations for the identical offense, noting
that “the 36 months he got back in 2007 for re-entering without
permission

didn’t

district

court

dissuade
adequately

his

return.”

explained

sentence and committed no other error.

We
the

find

that

the

above-Guidelines

Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5