US v. Consentino Bailon
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00054-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4370]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
CONSENTINO RODRIGUEZ BAILON, a/k/a Nicanor Vasquez, a/k/a
Carlos Hernandez, a/k/a Pedro Bailon Rodriguez, a/k/a
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00054-RJC-1)
March 10, 2016
March 14, 2016
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Jared
P. Martin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
judgment after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United
States after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated
felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
The district court sentenced Bailon at the bottom of
his Guidelines range to 46 months in prison.
On appeal, Bailon
contends the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable
arguments for a sentence below his Guidelines range.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors or failing to adequately explain
the chosen sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we consider whether it is substantively
289 (4th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
The presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
Pg: 3 of 4
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing
United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340
(4th Cir. 2013).
The court is next required to give the parties
an opportunity to argue for what they believe is an appropriate
sentence, and the court must consider those arguments in light
of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
When rendering a sentence, the district court must make and
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
While the sentencing court must
chosen sentence, the court’s explanation need not be exhaustive.
United States v. Avila, 770 F.3d 1100, 1107-08 (4th Cir. 2014)
(citations omitted); see also United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (court need not explicitly reference
§ 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record).
explanation must be sufficient “to satisfy the appellate court
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
Pg: 4 of 4
arguments for a sentence below his advisory Guidelines range,
bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?