US v. Pablo Bustos-Castaneda

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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