US v. Consentino Bailon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00054-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999773516].. [15-4370]
Appeal: 15-4370
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/14/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CONSENTINO RODRIGUEZ BAILON, a/k/a Nicanor Vasquez, a/k/a
Carlos Hernandez, a/k/a Pedro Bailon Rodriguez, a/k/a
Constantino Rodriguez,
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)
Submitted:
March 10, 2016
Decided:
March 14, 2016
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Jill Westmoreland
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4370
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/14/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Consentino
Rodriguez
Bailon
appeals
the
district
court’s
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)
(2012).
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
sentence
by
failing
to
adequately
address
and
consider
arguments for a sentence below his Guidelines range.
his
We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion.
United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
First,
we
consider
whether
the
district
court
committed
a
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
reasonable,
taking
circumstances.
within
or
below
Id.
a
into
On
appeal,
properly
substantively reasonable.
289 (4th Cir. 2012).
account
we
the
totality
presume
calculated
that
Guidelines
of
a
the
sentence
range
is
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
The presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
2
Appeal: 15-4370
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/14/2016
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).
In
sentencing,
the
district
court
must
first
correctly
calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing
Guidelines.
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).
Id.
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).
state in
open
court
the
While the sentencing court must
particular
reasons
that
support
its
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).
The court’s
explanation must be sufficient “to satisfy the appellate court
that
[it]
reasoned
has
basis
authority.”
considered
for
the
exercising
parties’
[its]
own
arguments
legal
and
has
decisionmaking
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
3
a
Appeal: 15-4370
Doc: 32
We
Filed: 03/14/2016
have
reviewed
sentence
is
district
court
the
procedurally
adequately
Pg: 4 of 4
record
and
and
conclude
substantively
addressed
and
that
Bailon’s
reasonable.
considered
The
Bailon’s
arguments for a sentence below his advisory Guidelines range,
and
the
court
reasonably
determined
that
a
sentence
at
the
bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?