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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?