United States v. Pedro Carrillo-Torres

Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-40676
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 14, 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PEDRO CARRILLO-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-164-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In 2013, Pedro Carrillo-Torres pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit
access devices and was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment. He appealed
his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in imposing a six-level
upward adjustment for an offense involving more than 250 victims. United
States v. Cardenas, 598 F. App’x 264, 265 (5th Cir. 2015). This court agreed,
vacating Carrillo-Torres’s sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-40676
Id. at 270. On remand, the district court again imposed a sentence of 108
months of imprisonment. Carrillo-Torres appeals the sentence imposed,
arguing that it is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
This court reviews sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a
bifurcated review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). An
appellate court must first ensure that the sentencing court committed no
significant procedural error, including improperly calculating the guidelines
range and failing to adequately explain the reasons for the chosen sentence,
including an explanation for any variance from the advisory guidelines range.
Id. at 51. In evaluating whether a district court committed a procedural error
in the sentencing determination, this court employs a de novo standard of
review. United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682, 688 (5th Cir. 2009).
In reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for substantive reasonableness, we
“consider the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance
from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We conclude that the sentence is reasonable under the circumstances.
The record in this case reflects that the district court did not fail to account for
a factor that should have received significant weight, give weight to any
improper factor, or clearly err in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Chandler, 732 F.3d 434, 437 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, we
defer to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on the
whole, justify the extent of the upward variance imposed in this case. See
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, given
that the court heard the parties’ arguments, permitted Carrillo-Torres and his
counsel to present mitigating evidence, and articulated its reasons for the
upward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, the district court was not
2
Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-40676
required to offer additional explanation for the sentence. See United States v.
Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
519 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
3