US v. Arturo Medel-Moran, No. 10-4114 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARTURO MEDEL-MORAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-JAB-1) Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arturo Medel-Moran pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of sentenced 8 by U.S.C. the imprisonment. § 1326(a), district Appellate (b)(2) court counsel (2006), to filed and fifty-two a brief he was months pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether Medel-Moran s sentence is reasonable. Counsel subsequently filed a supplemental brief, contending that the district court procedurally erred by failing to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and to consider the sentencing argument in the context of those factors. The Government asserts that there is no procedural error because the district court s explanation is sufficient. Alternatively, the Government contends that the error is harmless because defense counsel s sentencing arguments are not compelling. Medel-Moran was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Appellate review of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. (2007). This review Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 requires consideration of both procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 51. the Id. at Procedural reasonableness evaluates the method used to 2 determine a defendant s sentence. Mendoza, 597 [s]ubstantive F.3d 212, 216 (4th reasonableness United States v. MendozaCir. examines 2010). the In contrast, totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). This properly court calculated must the assess advisory Id. whether the Guidelines district range, court considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Because counsel preserved his procedural challenge to the sentence by arguing for a sentence different from that received by Medel-Moran, this court s review is for an abuse of discretion. States v. See Lynn, Hernandez, 592 603 F.3d F.3d at 581, 267, 270 583-84; cf. United (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing claim of procedural unreasonableness for plain error because defendant did sentence he received). not argue for sentence different from If the district court procedurally erred and thus abused its discretion, this court must reverse unless the error is harmless. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581, 585. 3 We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to place on the record an individualized assessment of Sentencing reasons § 3553(a) courts for Boulware, the are imposing 604 F.3d § 3553(c) (2006). a 832, factors relating statutorily chosen 837 sentence. (4th Cir. Medel-Moran. to required to state United 2010); their States see 18 v. U.S.C. In this case, the sentencing transcript is devoid of any such explanation. [B]ecause there is no indication that the district court considered the defendant s nonfrivolous arguments prior to sentencing him, Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585, and the court did not explain its sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that the procedural error is not harmless. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case. For the reasons set forth, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. We, of course, indicate no view as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon MedelMoran, leaving that determination, in the first instance, to the district facts court. and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument contentions are adequately the and argument court because presented would not the in the aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
