United States v. Gustavo Henriquez-Rivas ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GUSTAVO ALBERTO HENRIQUEZ-RIVAS, a/k/a Gustavo Alberto
Rivas-Henriquez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00483-GLR-1)
Submitted: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson,
Appellate Attorney, Perie Reiko Koyama, Law Clerk, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Zachary A. Myers, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gustavo Alberto Henriquez-Rivas appeals his fourteen-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unauthorized
reentry of a removed alien after a felony conviction, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). On appeal, he
argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
unreasonable sentence by failing to address his argument that
the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a
sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. Finding no error, we
affirm. 1
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review
requires us to ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based
1
Although Henriquez-Rivas was released from custody on
September 26, 2014, the appeal is not moot because it is
conceivable that “a favorable appellate decision might prompt
the district court to reduce [his] three-year term of supervised
release.” See United States v. Kleiner, 765 F.3d 155, 156 n.1
(2d Cir. 2014).
2
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation
from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court, we review for abuse of discretion” and will reverse
unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.” United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For
instance, if “an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the
district court of its responsibility to render an individualized
explanation” by drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence
different than the one ultimately imposed,” the party
sufficiently “preserves its claim.” Id. at 578. However, this
court reviews unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors for
plain error. Id. at 576-77. Because Henriquez-Rivas repeats on
appeal arguments he raised in the district court, we review for
abuse of discretion.
Upon review, we discern no procedural error in
Henriquez-Rivas’ fourteen-month sentence. A district court need
not provide a “comprehensive, detailed opinion” as long as it
has satisfied the appellate court that it “has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its
own legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Engle,
592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United
3
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted).
Here, the district court allowed the parties to file
multiple memoranda and/or letters in support of their sentencing
positions and further considered their arguments at sentencing.
Notably, Henriquez-Rivas thoroughly presented his argument that
the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a
sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, both in writing and
before the district court at sentencing. The district court
listened to the parties’ positions, acknowledged the “thorough
sentencing memoranda,” and stated that the court “kn[e]w exactly
what the arguments” were in the case. (J.A. 47).
The district court proceeded to explicitly invoke the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, rooting its chosen sentence in the
seriousness of Henriquez-Rivas’ offense, the need for deterrence
in light of his repeated illegal reentries, and the need to
protect the public from his violent behavior. Although the
district court “might have said more” to explain its rejection
of the argument raised by Henriquez-Rivas, see Rita, 551 U.S. at
359, its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow [us] to
effectively review the reasonableness of the sentence.” United
4
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 2
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Henriquez-Rivas does not challenge the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence on appeal.
5