US v. Carlos Romero

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00527-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999339969].. [13-4610]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-4610 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/21/2014 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4610 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS ROMERO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00527-GLR-1) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Justin S. Herring, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-4610 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/21/2014 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Carlos Romero was convicted following a jury trial of illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326, 1101(A)(43) (2012) (Count One), and possession of a firearm and of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012) (Counts Two and Three). Romero appeals the 180-month sentence imposed for his illegal reentry conviction, asserting that the district court erred in failing to adequately sentence. state its reasons for the above-Guidelines We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). The error asserted adequately the explain sentence significant procedural error. by imposed, Romero, failing to would constitute a Id.; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Such an explanation is required “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Here, we conclude that the district court adequately explained its variance sentence. Explicitly referencing the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court provided a detailed rationale for its sentence. The court stated that the 180-month sentence was warranted in light of Romero’s history of violence and leadership role in a gang. 2 The court also noted Appeal: 13-4610 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/21/2014 Pg: 3 of 3 the extremely seriously nature of the offense and the need for adequate deterrence individuals. to Romero and similarly-situated Finally, the court explained the need to protect the public from Romero, who has demonstrated “extraordinarily violent behavior,” has expressed no desire to disaffiliate from the gang, and became a gang leader at a relatively young age. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not commit the procedural sentencing error asserted by Romero. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?