US v. Brandon Cardez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00152-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000052186].. [16-4363]

Appeal: 16-4363

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON CARDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00152-FL-1)

Submitted:

March 27, 2017

Decided:

March 30, 2017

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine
L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4363

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Brandon

Cardez

appeals

his

28-month

sentence

imposed

following a guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(g)(1), 924 (2012).
Cardez

challenges

upward

the

departure

under

§ 4A1.3, p.s. (2016).
We

review

deferential

reasonableness

a

U.S.

of

the

On appeal,
court’s

Guidelines

Sentencing

district

Manual

For the following reasons, we affirm.

sentence

for

abuse-of-discretion

reasonableness,
standard.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

applying

Gall

v.

“a

United

“When reviewing a departure, we

consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with
respect

to

its

decision

respect

to

the

extent

range.”

to

of

impose

the

such

a

divergence

sentence

from

the

and

with

sentencing

United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 529 (4th Cir.

2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Reasonableness
components.

has

both

procedural

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

and

substantive

In assessing procedural

reasonableness, we consider factors such as whether the district
court

properly

considered

the

calculated
18

the

U.S.C.

Sentencing

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

sufficiently explained the sentence imposed.
defendant
imposing

or
a

prosecutor

different

presents

sentence

than

Guidelines

that

factors,

Id.

nonfrivolous
set

range,
and

“Where the
reasons

forth

in

for
the

advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party’s
2

Appeal: 16-4363

Doc: 44

arguments
United

and

States

Filed: 03/30/2017

explain
v.

why

Carter,

he
564

Pg: 3 of 4

has
F.3d

rejected
325,

(internal quotation marks omitted).

those

330

(4th

arguments.”
Cir.

2009)

If no procedural errors

exist, we consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence,
evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51.
Under that standard, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it applied USSG § 4A1.3, p.s.
That

section

information

encourages

indicates

upward

that

the

departures
defendant’s

when

“reliable

criminal

history

category substantially under-represents the seriousness of the
defendant’s

criminal

history

or

defendant will commit other crimes.”
Here,

the

district

court

the

likelihood

that

the

USSG § 4A1.3, p.s.

found

that

Cardez’s

criminal

history category underrepresented his past crimes, some of which
had

been

consolidated

for

judgments,

likely to commit future crimes.

and

that

Cardez

seemed

While Cardez committed most of

his crimes as a juvenile, the district court considered that
factor among others.
rejecting

more

The court also considered Cardez’s past in

lenient

sentences,

outpatient drug treatment.

including

supervision

with

Based on the court’s consideration

of all relevant factors and the totality of the circumstances,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it sentenced Cardez.
3

Appeal: 16-4363

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

the
before

facts
this

and
court

We

legal
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4