US v. Pablo Bustos-Castaneda


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00333-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999710177]. [15-4181]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4181 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PABLO BUSTOS-CASTANEDA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00333-TDS-1) Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4181 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Pablo Bustos-Castaneda pled guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated (2012). months’ sentence. felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) The district court sentenced Bustos-Castaneda to 68 imprisonment, and he now appeals, challenging his Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for any procedural error, including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)] 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.” Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the Court applies a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within Guidelines sentence). Bustos-Castaneda asserts that the district court did not properly consider factors he raised in support of his request 2 Appeal: 15-4181 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 for a below Guidelines sentence of 48 months. that his sentence was greater than sentencing objectives of § 3553(a). He also contends necessary to meet the Upon our review, we find that the within Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court expressly considered the factors raised by Bustos-Castaneda in favor of a below Guidelines sentence, but declined to grant his request. and characteristics, offense, his the criminal The court considered his history nature history and and circumstances punishments of for the prior offenses, employment history, health issues, extended family in the United states, and reason for reentering the United States. The court emphasized the need to protect the public and deter Bustos-Castaneda, as well as the fact that a prior sentence did not inspire him to respect the law. Guidelines sentence imposed following this 57-month The within individualized assessment is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

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?