US v. Leopoldo Ortiz-Velasco
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00078-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4252]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LEOPOLDO ORTIZ-VELASCO, a/k/a Cesar Francisco Castillo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00078-F-1)
December 16, 2016
January 4, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C.
Leisten, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
after deportation following conviction of an aggravated felony,
sentenced to 24 months in prison.
He now appeals, contending
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Procedural errors include the
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range.”
United States v. Carter, 564
Although the court need not “robotically tick through
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), it “must adequately
explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate
review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing,” Gall,
552 U.S. at 50.
Even if the court imposes a within-Guidelines-
range sentence, “it must place on the record an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Pg: 3 of 4
reasons for imposing a different sentence than that set forth in
the advisory Guidelines, a district [court] should address the
While “[t]he context surrounding a district court’s explanation
whether the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and whether
it did so properly,” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d
375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006), we “may not guess at the district
court’s rationale, searching the record for statements by the
Government or defense counsel or for any other clues that might
explain a sentence,” Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30.
Only if there are no significant procedural errors do we
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account “the totality of the circumstances.”
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,
306 (4th Cir. 2014).
The record establishes that the district court considered
and rejected Ortiz-Velasco’s arguments for a downward variance
Pg: 4 of 4
and sufficiently touched on the most relevant § 3553(a) factors
in fashioning the chosen sentence.
Thus, we conclude that the
having reviewed the record, we hold that Ortiz-Velasco has not
made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption that his
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?