US v. Brandon Cardez


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4363 Doc: 44 Filed: 03/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4363 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON CARDEZ, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?