United States v. Romero-Castillo , 277 F. App'x 309 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4796
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTURO ROMERO-CASTILLO, a/k/a Arturo Romero,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00424-RJC)
Submitted: May 2, 2008 Decided: May 13, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Gronquist, NIXON, PARK, GRONQUIST and FOSTER, P.L.L.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arturo Romero-Castillo appeals his 84-month sentence for
illegal reentry into the United States by a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Romero-Castillo
contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing
his sentence because it failed to adequately consider the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). We
presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-68 (2007). A district court must explain the sentence
it imposes sufficiently for this court to effectively review its
reasonableness, but need not mechanically discuss all the factors
listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
380 (4th Cir. 2006). The court’s explanation should indicate that
it considered the § 3553(a) factors and the arguments raised by the
parties. Id. We do not evaluate the adequacy of the district
court’s explanation “in a vacuum,” but also consider “[t]he context
surrounding a district court’s explanation.” Id. at 381.
Romero-Castillo has not overcome the presumptive
reasonableness of his sentence within the guidelines range, and the
district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court
-2-
discussed the § 3553(a) factors and, in particular, extensively
discussed Romero-Castillo’s contention that his substance abuse
problems constituted a mitigating factor that warranted a sentence
below the guidelines range. In considering the need to protect the
public and the most effective way to treat Romero-Castillo’s
addiction, the district court found that a sentence within the
guidelines range, although not at the high end of the sentencing
range for which the Government advocated, was sufficient but not
greater than necessary. In light of the evidence of Romero-
Castillo’s extensive criminal history, which included at least
eight convictions for driving while impaired or intoxicated, two
controlled substance offenses involving sales of marijuana to
undercover police officers, and several instances of entering the
United States illegally, the district court reasonably determined
within its discretion that the nature of his offense justified the
sentence imposed.
We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 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
-3-