United States v. Jesse Ramos-Chavez , 533 F. App'x 272 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4850
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JESSE RAMOS-CHAVEZ, a/k/a Jesse Chavez-Ramos,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00150-FL-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Ramos-Chavez appeals from the fourteen-month
sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2006).
On appeal, Ramos-Chavez argues that the district court imposed a
procedurally unreasonable sentence because it did not adequately
address defense counsel’s arguments at sentencing that
Ramos-Chavez was not a danger to the general public because his
prior convictions of violence involved an abusive girlfriend and
that he has a child with special needs that he was attempting to
support. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Ramos-Chavez’s sentence for reasonableness
“under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). In sentencing, the
district court should first calculate the Sentencing Guidelines
range and give the parties an opportunity to argue for whatever
sentence they deem appropriate. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The
district court should then consider the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2013) factors to determine whether they
support the sentence requested by either party. Id. When
rendering a sentence, the district court must make and place on
the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328,
2
330 (4th Cir. 2009). In explaining the chosen sentence, the
“sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory
factors and explain its sentence, it need not discuss every
factor on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
345 (4th Cir. 2006).
In this case, the record reflects that the district
court did consider the arguments advanced by Ramos-Chavez for a
lower-end sentence and that there was sufficient explanation for
their rejection. The court specifically stated that
Ramos-Chavez had substance abuse issues himself, enabled the
abusive conduct that contributed to his assault convictions, and
needed to distance himself from his girlfriend who was the
source of many of his troubles. The court recounted the
multiple times that Ramos-Chavez had been deported and noted
that the sentence needed to be sufficient to deter him from
illegally reentering the United States again. The court
recognized its obligation to specifically consider the § 3553(a)
factors. We conclude that the record demonstrates sufficient
reasoning for us to review the sentence and reflects the
district court’s consideration of Ramos-Chavez’s specific
3
arguments for a lower-end sentence. There was no abuse of
discretion.
We therefore affirm the sentence. 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
4