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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999773516].. [15-4370]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4370 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4370 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CONSENTINO RODRIGUEZ BAILON, a/k/a Nicanor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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?