US v. Trinidad Balderas-Sanchez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00004-PWG-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999754183]. [15-4475]

Appeal: 15-4475

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRINIDAD
BALDERAS-SANCHEZ,
a/k/a
Leonet
Arias,
a/k/a
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)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Conor Mulroe, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4475

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
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)
(2012).

Balderas-Sanchez argues on appeal that his sentence is

procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Finding no error,

we affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness using
an

abuse-of-discretion

standard.

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
reviewed

for

Id. at 51.

both

Gall

v.

United

States,

Under this standard, a sentence is

procedural

and

substantive

reasonableness.

A district court’s failure to adequately explain its

sentence is a “significant procedural error.”

Id.

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
his sentence.

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
the

sentence,

[18 U.S.C.]

“it

need

§ 3553(a)

not

robotically

[(2012)]

factors.”

tick

through

United

States

the
v.

Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 153 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
an

At the same time, the district court “must make

individualized

assessment

based
2

on

the

facts

presented.”

Appeal: 15-4475

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/12/2016

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).
Here,

the

district

court

agreed

with

Balderas-Sanchez’s

argument that a sentence within the Guidelines range was not
warranted.

However, the district court did not agree with the

extent of Balderas-Sanchez’s proposed variance, noting that a
sentence

of

48

months’

imprisonment

was

needed

to

deter

Balderas-Sanchez and others from returning to the United States
illegally.

Moreover, the district court considered Balderas-

Sanchez’s argument about the national average sentence for an
illegal-reentry

case,

finding

(J.A. 127). *

dispositive.”

it

“informative

.

.

.

but

not

Thus, we conclude that the district

court adequately explained its chosen sentence.
Because

the

sentence

is

free

of

“significant

procedural

error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.”
at

51.

calculated

“Any

sentence

Guidelines

that
range

is
is

within

or

Gall, 552 U.S.

below

presumptively

a

properly

reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert.
*

“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.

3

Appeal: 15-4475

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/12/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

“Such a presumption can only be

rebutted

by

sentence

measured

against

showing

Balderas-Sanchez
unreasonable

the

that

the

. . . § 3553(a)

argues

because

that
it

his

we

conclude

that

presumption

of

he

reasonableness

unreasonable

factors.”

sentence

creates

disparities,

is

is

Id.

failed

afforded

his

to

While

substantively

unwarranted

has

when

sentencing
overcome

the

below-Guidelines

sentence.
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