US v. Hector Villanueva-Corte

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00340-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999388800].. [14-4043]

Appeal: 14-4043

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR DANIEL VILLANUEVA-CORTES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00340-RWT-1)

Submitted:

May 30, 2014

Decided:

July 3, 2014

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Fischer, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF FISCHER & PUTZI, P.A.,
Glen Burnie, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Kelly O. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Colin Allred, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4043

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Hector Daniel Villanueva-Cortes pleaded guilty to one
count of reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326 (2012).
to

eighteen

The district court sentenced Villanueva-Cortes

months’

imprisonment,

which

included

an

upward

variance of twelve months from the high end of the properly
calculated Sentencing Guidelines range.

He appeals, claiming

that the district court improperly relied upon the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities when it varied upward.
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012).

See 18

Concluding that the court did not

err, we affirm.
We

review

deferential
States,

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

for

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

reasonableness,

court

properly

range,

gave

appropriate

calculated

the

parties

sentence,

we

Id. at 51.
consider

whether

the

defendant’s

an

opportunity

considered

the

In determining

18

the

advisory
to

Guidelines

argue

U.S.C.

district

for

§ 3553(a)

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

an

Id.

If the sentence is free of significant procedural

error, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness,

2

Appeal: 14-4043

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

“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

564

marks

F.3d

and

325,

328

emphasis

(4th

omitted),

Cir.

2009)

and

must

“adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate

review

sentencing.”

and

to

promote

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.

district

court

sentence,

it

imposes
must

an

above,

place

on

perception

of

fair

“Regardless of whether the
below,

the

or

record

within-Guidelines
an

individualized

assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
Carter,

564

F.3d

at

330

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

When a district court imposes a sentence that falls outside of
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

extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
States
2007).

v.

Hernandez-Villanueva,

473

F.3d

118,

123

to

the

United

(4th

Cir.

In conducting this review, we “must give due deference

to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on
a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”
51.

3

Gall, 552 U.S. at

Appeal: 14-4043

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/03/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that the district court did not improperly
rely upon the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
under

§ 3553(a)(6)

to

sentencing factors.
factor
and

to

that

factor

conclude

that

exclusion

of

the

other

statutory

The court described how each sentencing

related

why

the

Villanueva-Cortes’

the

supported

court

did

an
not

individual

upward

circumstances

variance.

improperly

rely

We

also

upon

the

sentence imposed in another case to determine the length of the
variance.

After reviewing the circumstances, we hold that the

sentence imposed, including the 12 month upward variance, was
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4