US v. Daniel Marroquin-Santiago
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00232-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704508].. [15-4333, 15-4346]
Appeal: 15-4333
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL MARROQUIN-SANTIAGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-4346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL MARROQUIN-SANTIAGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00232-JAB-1; 1:14-cr-00459-JAB1)
Submitted:
November 19, 2015
Decided:
November 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Appeal: 15-4333
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-4333
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In
appeals
these
the
consolidated
24-month
appeals,
sentence
Daniel
imposed
Marroquin-Santiago
after
he
pled
guilty,
pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of illegal reentry of
a
felon,
in
violation
of
8
U.S.C.
§ 1326
(2012)
(“reentry
case”), as well as the 12-month sentence imposed for violating
the
supervised
release
terms
of
conviction (“revocation case”).
his
prior
illegal
reentry
In the reentry case, Marroquin-
Santiago asserts that the 24-month sentence was greater than
necessary
to
achieve
§ 3553(a) (2012).
the
sentencing
objectives
of
18
U.S.C.
In the revocation case, Marroquin-Santiago
asserts that imposing his 12-month sentence to run consecutively
to
the
24-month
sentence
in
the
plainly unreasonable sentence.
reentry
case
resulted
in
a
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Marroquin-Santiago’s 24-month sentence in the reentry
case
for
reasonableness,
standard of review.
(2007).
ensure
using
an
abuse
of
discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
The first step in this review requires the court to
that
the
procedural error.
(4th Cir. 2008).
procedurally
district
court
committed
no
significant
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61
If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
reasonable
will
we
reasonableness of the sentence.
F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
3
consider
the
substantive
United States v. Carter, 564
We presume that a sentence
Appeal: 15-4333
within
Doc: 27
a
Filed: 11/23/2015
properly
reasonable.
calculated
Pg: 4 of 5
Sentencing
Guidelines
range
is
United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 582 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 229 (2014).
Although
Marroquin-Santiago
concedes
that
we
may
presume
his 24-month sentence is reasonable because it was within the
Guidelines range calculated at sentencing, he asserts that he
should
have
been
personal
history
district
court
sentenced
and
imposed
a
of
considerations
of
exercised
arguments
sentence
circumstances
a
lesser
characteristics.
properly
Marroquin-Santiago’s
to
the
that
in
§ 3553(a).
We
its
based
discretion
the
as
See
Evans,
and
as
526
his
the
to
nature
well
on
that
conclude
mitigation,
reflects
offense,
term
reject
that
and
the
F.3d
it
the
other
at
162
(recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is
required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the
individual case” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Marroquin-Santiago
reasonableness
has
this
failed
court
to
rebut
affords
the
his
Because
presumption
of
within-Guidelines
sentence, we affirm his sentence in the reentry case.
We also reject Marroquin-Santiago’s assertion that his 12month sentence in the revocation case is plainly unreasonable
because the district rejected his request to run the sentence
concurrent to his sentence in the reentry case.
4
Sentences or
Appeal: 15-4333
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 5 of 5
breaches of supervised release are meant to sanction the abuse
of the court’s trust inherent in those violations, and not to
punish
the
underlying
offense
conduct.
Therefore,
these
sentences are intended to run consecutively to other sentences:
Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation
of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to
be
served
consecutively
to
any
sentence
of
imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or
not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted
from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation
of probation or supervised release.
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
§ 7B1.3(f),
p.s.
(2014).
Accordingly, it was not error for the district court to impose
Marroquin-Santiago’s
sentence
in
the
revocation
case
consecutively to his sentence in the reentry case.
conclude
that
Marroquin-Santiago’s
12-month
to
run
Because we
sentence
is
not
unreasonable, it necessarily follows that the sentence is not
plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
440 (4th Cir. 2006).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgments.
dispense
with
contentions
before
this
oral
are
court
argument
because
adequately
and
the
presented
argument
would
not
facts
in
aid
and
We
legal
the
materials
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?