US v. Sergio Renteria-Gonzalez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00052-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999996324].. [16-4029]

Appeal: 16-4029

Doc: 44

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO RENTERIA-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Jaime Roberto Hurd-Pinero,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00052-FL-1)

Submitted:

October 26, 2016

Decided:

January 3, 2017

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4029

Doc: 44

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Sergio Renteria-Gonzalez appeals his 30-month prison sentence
after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon.
The district court sentenced him at the high end of his Guidelines
range of 24 to 30 months.

On appeal, Renteria-Gonzalez contends

that

committed

the

district

court

procedural

error

by

not

explaining its rejection of his argument for a sentence below the
Guidelines range.

We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) 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)).

We first consider whether the district

court committed a significant procedural error, such as failing to
adequately explain the sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

If the

sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider its substantive
reasonableness,
circumstances.

taking
Id.

into

account

the

totality

of

the

We presume that a sentence within or below

the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).

United States

The presumption can

only be rebutted by showing the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented when imposing a sentence, apply[ing]
2

Appeal: 16-4029

Doc: 44

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of
the case and the defendant, and must state in open court the
particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence.”

Lymas, 781

F.3d at 113 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A]

district court’s explanation of its sentence need not be lengthy,
but the court must offer some individualized assessment justifying
the sentence imposed and rejection of arguments for a higher or
lower sentence based on § 3553.”
quotation marks omitted).

Id. (citation and internal

The “court’s stated rationale must be

tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit
meaningful

appellate

review.”

Id.

(citation

and

internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356 (2007) (explanation must “satisfy the appellate court
that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.”).
“Although every sentence requires an adequate explanation, a
more complete and detailed explanation of a sentence is required
when departing from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and a major
departure should be supported by a more significant justification
than a minor one.”

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271

(4th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, however, the
explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.”
internal quotation marks omitted).
3

Id. (citations and

Appeal: 16-4029

Doc: 44

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

Where the defendant properly preserved the issue of whether
the explanation was adequate, this Court reviews the issue for
abuse of discretion.
(4th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576

If this Court finds such abuse, the Court must

reverse unless it concludes that the error was harmless.

Id.

The

Government bears the burden of showing that the error did not have
a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result and
this Court can say with fair assurance that the district court’s
explicit consideration of the defendant’s arguments would not have
affected the sentence imposed.

United States v. Boulware, 604

F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010).
In Lynn, we held that to preserve a claim that the district
court provided inadequate explanation for a sentence, a party is
not required to lodge an explicit objection after the district
court’s explanation.

Rather, “[b]y drawing arguments from § 3553

for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, an
aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its
responsibility to render an individualized explanation addressing
those arguments, and thus preserves its claim.”

Lynn, 592 F.3d at

578. However, “lodging one specific claim of procedural sentencing
error before the district court, e.g., relying on certain § 3553
factors,

does

not

preserve

for

appeal

a

different

claim

of

procedural sentencing error, e.g., relying on different § 3553
factors.”

Id. at 579 n.4.
4

Appeal: 16-4029

Doc: 44

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 5 of 5

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not err or abuse its discretion, and it adequately
explained its sentencing decision.

It made an individualized

assessment based on the facts presented, applied the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case and
the defendant, and stated in open court the particular reasons
supporting its chosen sentence.

Its statements were sufficient to

satisfy us that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a
reasoned basis for exercising its decisionmaking authority.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5