US v. Hermelindo Velasquez-Rivera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00102-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999414620].. [13-4721]

Appeal: 13-4721

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/13/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HERMELINDO VELASQUEZ-RIVERA,
a/k/a Hermelindo Castro,

a/k/a

Ramon

Efrain-Castro,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00102-D-1)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Decided:

August 13, 2014

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4721

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/13/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hermelindo

Velasquez-Rivera

pleaded

guilty

to

one

count of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of
8

U.S.C.

§ 1326(a),

(b)(2)

(2012).

During

sentencing,

the

district court heard allocution from a person who was not a
victim

of

Velasquez-Rivera’s

federal

conviction,

but

was

a

purported victim of related criminal conduct listed in the presentence report.

Velasquez-Rivera contends the court abused its

discretion because the person was not a victim as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) (2012).

We conclude there was no error and

affirm.
Under

18

U.S.C.

§ 3661

(2012),

at

sentencing

“[n]o

limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an
offense

which

a

court

of

the

United

States

may

receive

and

consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
Under

§ 3661,

the

sentencing

court

has

the

discretion

to

“conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as
to the kind of information [they] may consider, or the source
from which it may come.”

Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct.

1229, 1240 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The court

“has always been free to consider the wide range of relevant
material.”

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 820-21 (1991).

We

have noted that § 3661 permits the sentencing court to consider
2

Appeal: 13-4721

Doc: 35

information

Filed: 08/13/2014

“not

directly

Pg: 3 of 3

related

commission of the offense[.]”

to

[the

defendant’s]

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d

456, 462 (4th Cir. 2004).
In
affect

the

this

instance,

district

the

court’s

statement

at

determination

imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines.

issue

of

did

not

the

range

of

Nor did it affect

the actual sentence, because the court stated that it was not
relying upon the statement in reaching an appropriate sentence,
but was relying instead upon the statutory sentencing factors
listed under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2012).
Because there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3