United States v. Tulio Mejia-Martinez ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TULIO RAMON MEJIA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00023-FL-1)
Submitted: January 6, 2023 Decided: June 9, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Tulio Ramon Mejia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals the 18-
month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation for
an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Mejia-Martinez
asserts, among other arguments, that the district court failed to adequately consider his
arguments for a downward variant sentence. Upon review, we hold that the district court
procedurally erred in imposing this sentence and that this error was not harmless.
Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s criminal judgment and remand for resentencing.
“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the
facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for
meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United
States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
explaining its sentence, the “court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons
presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those
arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
Generally, an “explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the
defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but
as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s
arguments” in mitigation. United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned
up). “The court’s explanation should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020)
(cleaned up).
While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the
context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,
searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other
clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745
(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has
silently adopted arguments presented by a party.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204,
214 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the court fully addresses
the defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each
supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. Nonetheless, a district court’s failure
to give “specific attention to [a defendant’s] nonfrivolous arguments” results in a
procedurally unreasonable sentence. Lewis, 958 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
In broad terms, Mejia-Martinez requested a downward variance from his revised
Sentencing Guidelines range of 18-24 months in prison because the presentence report
overrepresented his criminal history and the relevant facts and circumstances indicated that
Mejia-Martinez posed a lower-than-usual risk of recidivism. Admittedly, Mejia-
Martinez’s arguments were not nuanced, lengthy, or complex. However, while the court
engaged with counsel and Mejia-Martinez concerning some of the relevant facts and
circumstances, the court did not directly engage with either of these arguments prior to
imposing its sentence. Importantly, the court’s colloquy with Mejia-Martinez and his
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
attorney did not touch upon the alleged overrepresentation of Mejia-Martinez’s criminal
history, which both drove the calculation of Mejia-Martinez’s adjusted offense level and,
of course, his criminal history score. Cf. Blue, 877 F.3d at 521 (noting that reviewing court
may infer that district court considered defendant’s arguments if “the sentencing court
engages counsel in a discussion about that argument”). Upon review of the record, we are
not convinced that what statements the court did offer—even when considered in context
of the sentencing transcript as a whole—make it “patently obvious” that the court “truly
considered [Mejia-Martinez’s] nonfrivolous arguments.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude
that the court’s failure to respond to the proffered mitigation arguments constitutes
procedural error.
To avoid reversal, the Government must demonstrate that this procedural error was
harmless, which requires “pro[of] that the error did not have a substantial and injurious
effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In other words, the Government must show that Mejia-Martinez did not receive a longer
sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous arguments. The
Government makes no such argument, though, contending instead that the district court
directly addressed Mejia-Martinez’s mitigation arguments. Upon review of the record, we
cannot agree. Accordingly, the Government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate
that the district court’s error was harmless. And because we conclude that Mejia-
Martinez’s arguments in mitigation were not particularly weak in that they were highly
relevant to the primary issues of concern in this case, to wit: Mejia-Martinez’s likelihood
of recidivating and the violent nature of his prior criminal conduct, we cannot conclude
4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
that the sentencing error is harmless. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40
(4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court’s error harmless because the court explained that it
considered the sentencing factors, “emphasized the need for specific and general
deterrence,” and the defendant’s arguments “were very weak”).
Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
We deny as moot Mejia-Martinez’s motion for accelerated case processing. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5