United States v. Erick Gonzalez-Chicas ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERICK VALENTIN GONZALEZ-CHICAS, a/k/a Erick V. Gonzalez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00279-JRS-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Erick Valentin Gonzalez-Chicas pled guilty to one
count of illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). His
twenty-four-month sentence was the bottom his properly
calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. ∗ Gonzalez-
Chicas’ sole argument on appeal is that the district court
failed to adequately explain its decision to deny counsel’s
argument for a downward variance sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 45-46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 578–79 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting abuse of discretion
standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves
a claim of sentencing error). We begin by reviewing the
sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
∗
Gonzalez-Chicas’ advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was
24-30 months.
2
adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account
the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511
F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We presume reasonable a sentence
within the properly calculated Guidelines range. United States
v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
An individualized explanation must accompany every
sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. The court’s explanation need
not be exhaustive, although it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy
the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decicisionmaking authority.’” United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). When imposing a
sentence within the Guidelines range, however, the explanation
need not be elaborate or lengthy because Guidelines “sentences
themselves are in many ways tailored to the individual and
reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,
271 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
We hold that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error during sentencing. The
district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines
3
range and it is apparent from the court’s discussion that it
considered both parties’ arguments, including the § 3553(a)
factors, and had a reasoned basis for its decision.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4