US v. Carlos Avila

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999971925]. [16-4188]

Appeal: 16-4188

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ADRIAN OLEA AVILA, a/k/a Eric Santiago Roman, a/k/a
Carlos Olea Avila,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1)

Submitted:

October 19, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

DUNCAN

November 21, 2016

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant
United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4188

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Adrian Olea Avila pled guilty to illegal reentry by
an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012).

Avila appealed his within-Guidelines sentence of 70

months’ imprisonment.

We remanded for resentencing because the

district court did not articulate on the record the reasons for
the chosen sentence.

United States v. Avila, 633 F. App’x 577

(4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4900).

On remand, the district court

imposed the same sentence.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the procedural
reasonableness
district

of

court

§ 3553(a)

Avila’s

failed

(2012)

sentence

to

adequately

factors

assessment on remand.

on

and

the

ground

consider

conduct

an

the

that
18

the

U.S.C.

individualized

The Government declined to file a brief.

Although informed of his right to do so, Avila has not filed a
supplemental brief.
Our review of Avila’s sentence is for reasonableness, under
an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
error.

Id.

calculating
Guidelines

at
the

as

Gall v. United States, 552

We first review for significant procedural

51.

Procedural

Sentencing

mandatory,

error

Guidelines

failing
2

to

includes
range,

consider

improperly

treating
the

§

the

3553(a)

Appeal: 16-4188

Doc: 19

factors,

Filed: 11/21/2016

and

sentence.

failing

Id.

to

Pg: 3 of 5

adequately

explain

the

selected

Although a sentencing court need not issue a

comprehensive, detailed opinion explaining the sentence imposed,
the sentencing judge should provide an explanation sufficient
“to

satisfy

the

appellate

court

that

he

has

considered

the

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his
own legal decisionmaking authority.”

Rita v. United States, 551

U.S. 338 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
United

States

v.

Carter,

564

F.3d

325,

330

(“Th[e]

individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy but
it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at
hand

and

adequate

to

permit

meaningful

appellate

review.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)).
On remand, the district court observed that in Avila’s case
there was a “pattern of violations,” that Avila reentered the
United

States

shortly

after

being

deported

­

violating

his

supervised release, violated the law after his arrival, failed
to abide by court orders, and failed to be truthful with the
court.

The court concluded that a 70-month within-Guidelines

sentence was necessary to promote deterrence because Avila had
difficulty following instructions not to return.

The court also

opined that the sentence was necessary to protect the public
because Avila violated the laws while he was in this country.
The

court

further

added

that

the
3

sentence

reflected

Avila’s

Appeal: 16-4188

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

unwillingness to be truthful with the court and to abide by the
court’s orders.
Reviewing the district court’s statements at sentencing, it
is

evident

that

the

court

based

its

chosen

sentence

on

its

individualized assessment of Avila’s case and its consideration
of the relevant § 3553(a) factors: Avila’s history of repeated
illegal reentries, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the need to promote
respect

for

the

law,

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A),

the

need

to

protect the public, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), and the need to
afford

adequate

deterrence

§ 3553(a)(2)(B).

to

criminal

conduct,

18

U.S.C.

Its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow

[this Court] to effectively review the reasonableness of the
sentence.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we find no procedural error at sentencing.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Avila, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Avila requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
4

Appeal: 16-4188

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/21/2016

was served on Avila.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5