US v. Felix Caban

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00168-JAG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999806765].. [15-4756]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4756 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4756 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FELIX JOEL LUNA CABAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00168-JAG-1) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis, Research & Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Stephen C. Dimpsey, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4756 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Felix Joel Luna Caban was convicted by a magistrate judge of violating his imprisonment. affirmed. now appeals imposed unreasonable. and sentenced to 10 months’ Luna Caban appealed to the district court, which He sentence probation by to the this court, magistrate arguing judge that was the plainly We affirm. We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation to determine whether it is “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). determine whether the sentence is unreasonable, We first “follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences.” Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). revocation posture sentence, concerning discretion’ sentences.” at 439). than we apply issues “a of more fact reasonableness United States v. In reviewing a ‘deferential and review the for appellate exercise of guidelines Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d Only if we find a revocation sentence unreasonable must we determine whether it is “plainly” so. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. 2 Appeal: 15-4756 Doc: 22 § 3553(a) Filed: 04/28/2016 (2012) factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3565 (2012). Pg: 3 of 5 Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656; see The court must provide an adequate statement of reasons for the revocation sentence it imposes, but this statement need not be as specific or as detailed as that required in imposing an original sentence. Thompson, sentence 595 is F.3d 544, substantively 547 (4th Cir. reasonable United States v. 2010). if the A revocation court stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. The sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. “the sentencing court See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). retains broad discretion However, to revoke a defendant’s probation and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657. On appeal, Luna Caban primarily argues that the magistrate judge procedurally erred in failing to adequately address defense counsel’s arguments when articulating the reasons for Luna Caban’s judge’s sentence. statement indication” arguments that raised of it by However, reasons was “considered both parties we conclude adequate the to the “provide potentially about magistrate some meritorious sentencing.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006); cf. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005) 3 Appeal: 15-4756 Doc: 22 (discussing Filed: 04/28/2016 court’s failure Pg: 4 of 5 to address defendant’s arguments regarding his severe psychiatric illness and substance abuse). The magistrate judge implicitly rejected Luna Caban’s argument that extenuating circumstances justified or mitigated his violations in observing violating court orders. his longstanding pattern of The magistrate judge explicitly stated that he found no basis for the downward variance requested by defense counsel and addressed each of the relevant § 3553(a) factors. While the court placed heavy emphasis on Luna Caban’s repeated noncompliance, a sentencing court is permitted to place significant justified weight on the record by a single as a factor if, whole. See as here, is States United it v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007). Luna Caban faults the Caban’s financial acknowledging Luna incarceration would compound magistrate these preventing his return to work. judge obligations financial for or not that his challenges by However, the magistrate judge specifically noted that he had originally imposed a “generous” sentence precisely payments, yet Luna to permit Caban had requirements of his release. (addressing context). explanation, importance On the which of whole, was Luna Caban failed to to make comply continued with the See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381 viewing we statement conclude both 4 the tailored of reasons magistrate to the in judge’s specific Appeal: 15-4756 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 5 of 5 circumstances of Luna Caban’s case and grounded in the § 3553(a) factors, adequately demonstrated that he “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [his] own decisionmaking authority” in rejecting Luna Caban’s request for a variance. F.3d 330, 343 (4th See United States v. Allmedinger, 706 Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, Luna Caban argues that his sentence, which was two months below the statutory maximum, was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the court acted well within its broad discretion in sentencing Luna Caban to the middle of his policy statement range. 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 5

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?