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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?