United States v. Pablo Bustos-Castaneda , 623 F. App'x 610 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PABLO BUSTOS-CASTANEDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00333-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pablo Bustos-Castaneda pled guilty to illegal reentry of an
aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012). The district court sentenced Bustos-Castaneda to 68
months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals, challenging his
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th
Cir. 2015). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for any
procedural error, including “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 on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if
the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the Court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within Guidelines sentence).
Bustos-Castaneda asserts that the district court did not
properly consider factors he raised in support of his request
2
for a below Guidelines sentence of 48 months. He also contends
that his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the
sentencing objectives of § 3553(a). Upon our review, we find
that the within Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable.
The district court expressly considered the factors raised
by Bustos-Castaneda in favor of a below Guidelines sentence, but
declined to grant his request. The court considered his history
and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the
offense, his criminal history and punishments for prior
offenses, employment history, health issues, extended family in
the United states, and reason for reentering the United States.
The court emphasized the need to protect the public and deter
Bustos-Castaneda, as well as the fact that a prior 57-month
sentence did not inspire him to respect the law. The within
Guidelines sentence imposed following this individualized
assessment is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3