US v. Carlos Avila

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999724252].. [14-4900]

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 9

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4900

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ADRIAN OLEA AVILA, a/k/a Eric Santiago Roman, a/k/a
Carlos Olea Avila,
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. (1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1)

Submitted:

May 27, 2015

Decided:

December 23, 2015

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Alena K.
Baker, Third Year Law Student, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 9

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Adrian Olea Avila appeals the 70-month sentence the
district court imposed following his guilty plea to the charge
of

illegal

reentry

of

an

aggravated

8 U.S.C. §§ 1326 (a) and (b)(2).

felon,

in

violation

of

On appeal, Avila argues that

the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence
by failing to explain his sentence and by failing to conduct an
individualized assessment of the facts to support his sentence.
Because the district court failed to state the basis for the
sentence imposed, we are constrained to conclude that we can
neither

uphold

determine
vacate

its

the

the

sentence

substantive

judgment

of

as

procedurally

reasonableness.

the

district

court

reasonable
Accordingly,
and

remand

nor
we
for

resentencing.

I.
A.
Avila, a native of Mexico, entered the United States on
June

15,

2001.

In

2003

and

2004,

he

felonies in California Superior Court.

was

of

two

The first, in December

2003, was for possession of methamphetamine.
September 2004, was for vehicle theft.

convicted

The second, in

Following the second

conviction, on September 24, 2004, Avila was deported to Mexico.

2

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 9

Avila, however, returned to the United States.

In 2009,

after he was discovered, he was convicted of illegal reentry by
an aggravated felon and sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.
After completing his sentence for that crime, Avila was deported
to Mexico again.
Less than three years later, Avila was discovered in the
United States again.

On April 7, 2014, Avila was arrested by

the Charlotte ICE/ERO Fugitive Operations Team.

A federal grand

jury

reentry

subsequently

aggravated
(b)(2).

felon,

indicted
in

Avila

violation

for

of

8

illegal
U.S.C.

§§

1326

by
(a)

an
and

Avila pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement.
B.

In preparing the presentence report (“PSR”), the probation
officer

calculated

U.S.S.G. §

2L1.2(a)

a

base-offense

(2013),

with

a

level
16-level

of

8

under

increase

the

because

Avila had been previously deported following his 2003 felony
drug trafficking conviction.
acceptance

of

Applying a 3-level reduction for

responsibility,

the

Avila’s total offense level to be 21.

probation

officer

found

With a criminal history

category of V, he faced a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months.
The probation officer recommended a sentence at the low end of
the advisory Guidelines range.

Neither party objected to the

PSR.

3

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 9

The district court adopted the PSR and calculated Avila’s
Guidelines

range

to

requested

a

downward

variance,

be

70

to

within-Guidelines

87

months.

arguing

sentence.
that,

The

Avila

by

both

government

requested
imposing

a
the

enhancement for illegal reentry and finding a criminal history
category

of

V,

the

PSR

double-counted

his

prior

felony

conviction.
To Avila’s argument for a downward variance, the Government
responded that the three criminal history points were added for
the

prior

because

conviction

Avila

once

and

the

again

16-level

reentered

enhancement

the

country

was

given

illegally.

Therefore, the Government argued, there was no double-counting.
The Government stated, however, that it had no objection to a
70-month sentence.
The

district

court

agreed

with

the

Government

on

the

double-counting argument and concluded that a downward variance
was unwarranted.

Although the district court also concluded

that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was
appropriate, it neither explained its rationale for adopting a
within-Guidelines

sentence

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
70 months’ imprisonment.

nor

explicitly

mentioned

the

The court then sentenced Avila to

This appeal followed.

4

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 5 of 9

II.
In

his

appeal,

Avila

contends

that

his

sentence

is

procedurally unreasonable because (1) the district court failed
to sufficiently explain its sentencing decision, including the
application of the § 3553(a) factors, and (2) the district court
failed to conduct an individualized assessment in its sentencing
decision.
In reviewing any sentence for reasonableness, “we apply a
‘deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’”

United States v.

Carter,

(quoting

564

F.3d

325,

328

(4th

Cir.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
two-step

approach.

We

first

must

2009)

v.

Our analysis follows a

“ensure

that

the

court committed no significant procedural error.”
U.S. at 51.

Gall

district
Gall, 552

“If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally

reasonable,”
reasonableness

we
of

then
the

proceed

to

sentence

“consider

imposed.”

the

substantive

Carter,

564

at 328 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
A district court commits procedural error by
failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines
range,
treating
the
Guidelines
as
mandatory,
failing
to
consider
the
[18
U.S.C]
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation
for any deviation from the Guidelines range.

5

F.3d

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Pg: 6 of 9

“District courts are obligated to explain

their sentences, whether those sentences are within or beyond
the Guidelines range, although they should especially explain
sentences outside this range.”
445

F.3d

375,

omitted).

380

In

(4th

United States v. Montes-Pineda,

Cir.

particular,

2006)

18

(citation

U.S.C.

and

§ 3553(c)

alteration
requires

a

district court to “state in open court” the specific reasons
supporting the sentence given.

In doing so, “[t]he sentencing

judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

This not only

“allow[s] for meaningful appellate review”; it also “promote[s]
the perception of fair sentencing.”
Even
sentence,

if
“it

a

district

must

place

court
on

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
imposes

the

record

a

within-Guidelines
an

‘individualized

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

Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50)

(footnote omitted).

“This individualized assessment need not be

elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored
to

the

particular

case

at

hand

‘meaningful appellate review.’”
at 50).

6

and

adequate

to

permit

Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S.

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 7 of 9

In Carter, we concluded that the district court failed to
“justify

Carter's

sentence

with

an

Id. at 328-29 (emphasis omitted).

individualized

rationale.”

Despite the fact that the

district court had “offered a variety of statements” about the
parties' arguments, had explained that it was “looking at the
four purposes in Section 3553(a)(2),” and had even summarized
those purposes, we concluded that the district court failed to
sufficiently
Id.

at

“explain

329.

Thus,

how
we

those
found

purposes
Carter’s

applied
sentence

to

Carter.”

unreasonable

because the “district court's asserted ‘reasons’ could apply to
any

sentence,

regardless

of

the

offense,

the

defendant's

personal background, or the defendant's criminal history.”

Id.

(emphasis omitted).
Here, the totality of the district court's statement to
Avila with respect to the sentence was as follows:
I am in agreement with Ms. Hairston’s perspective with
regard to how the counted criminal history points, as
well as the reason for the aggravated felony existing,
and will not vary downward, Mr. McCoppin, for that
reason.
I am in agreement as well with the
recommendation of the guidelines for a sentence at the
low end of that advisory range, which is 70 months.
Everyone does have a right to change their life. What
happens here regardless of what it is, has nothing to
do with the person’s decision and right to change
whatever it is they do.
You had the opportunity to
change any decision you would make after you were
convicted in Federal District Court in Arizona about
returning to the United States.

7

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 8 of 9

You know, I am blessed every day, we all are in this
courtroom, to have the right to be in the United
States, either by birth or through naturalization.
Often we don’t understand just how important that is.
We often take that for granted and don’t appreciate it
properly, but that doesn’t mean that I can change the
law or bend the law with regard for what it is for
people returning as you have, now more than once when
you’re not lawfully entitled to, without getting the
appropriate permission from immigration officials.

J.A. 60-61.

The district court's commentary certainly manifests

its concern regarding the offense and its agreement with the
recommended Guidelines sentence.

It does not, however, include

individualized reasons for adopting a within-Guidelines sentence
or an explanation of the sentence actually imposed.
The omission is compounded by the lack of an explanation of
how the § 3553(a) factors applied to the facts of Avila's case.
Although it is true that a district court need not “robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), it must elaborate
enough on its application of the sentencing factors so as “to
allow

an

appellate

court

to

effectively

review

the

reasonableness of the sentence,” Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 380
(citation omitted).

Here, the district court did not offer any

reasons to explain how the purposes of the § 3553(a) factors
applied to Avila.

Furthermore, the record is so bare that we

cannot decipher from it whether the district court considered

8

Appeal: 14-4900

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 9 of 9

the § 3553(a) factors at all, let alone perform any meaningful
appellate review.
In sum, we cannot uphold Avila’s sentence as procedurally
reasonable because the district court did not adequately explain
the basis for the sentence imposed.

Accordingly, we vacate the

judgment of the district court and remand for resentencing.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

the

in

the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

III.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the
district court and remand for resentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED

9