US v. Trinidad Balderas-Sanchez
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00004-PWG-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4475]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Leonetta Arias, a/k/a Leonetta Artias, a/k/a Manuel Bandero,
a/k/a Manuel I Bandero, a/k/a Daniuel Guzman, a/k/a
Bladimirs Ramines, a/k/a Manases Torres,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15cr-00004-PWG-1)
January 29, 2016
February 12, 2016
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton,
Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Conor Mulroe, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
The district court sentenced Trinidad Balderas-Sanchez to
48 months’ imprisonment after he pled guilty to illegal reentry
of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
Balderas-Sanchez argues on appeal that his sentence is
procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Finding no error,
We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness using
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Id. at 51.
Under this standard, a sentence is
A district court’s failure to adequately explain its
sentence is a “significant procedural error.”
Balderas-Sanchez argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to address his
arguments in mitigation and, thus, failed to adequately explain
In evaluating a sentencing court’s explanation of
a selected sentence, we have consistently held that, while the
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 153 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
At the same time, the district court “must make
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
Pg: 3 of 4
While the “individualized assessment need
not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit
meaningful appellate review.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
argument that a sentence within the Guidelines range was not
However, the district court did not agree with the
extent of Balderas-Sanchez’s proposed variance, noting that a
Balderas-Sanchez and others from returning to the United States
Moreover, the district court considered Balderas-
Sanchez’s argument about the national average sentence for an
(J.A. 127). *
Thus, we conclude that the district
court adequately explained its chosen sentence.
error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert.
“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.
Pg: 4 of 4
denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
“Such a presumption can only be
. . . § 3553(a)
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?