US v. Alexander Jesus Santiago, No. 10-4180 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4180 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALEXANDER JESUS SANTIAGO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00299-REP-1) Submitted: November 24, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alexander Jesus Santiago was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006). pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. guilty, months and the district imprisonment, court at Santiago was found sentenced the bottom Santiago him of to eighty-four Santiago s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) (2009) range. Santiago pursuant to appealed, Anders v. and his counsel California, 386 filed U.S. 738 a brief (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking us to review, first, whether the district court erred when it applied a two-level firearm enhancement, and second, whether the district court failed to sufficiently explain the sentence brief imposed. arguing Santiago that he was submitted a pro deprived of the se supplemental opportunity to confront and cross-examine the forensic chemist who identified the substances recovered as heroin, ineffective assistance of counsel. and that he received We affirm. Counsel first argues that the district court committed plain error pursuant sufficient when to it applied a two-level USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) connection between because the weapon weapon enhancement there was and the not a heroin. Counsel notes that Santiago did not have a firearm on his person 2 or in his vehicle when he was arrested, but that the firearm was recovered from Santiago s residence, where no drugs were found. The offense Guidelines level (including a Application in a drug firearm) note allow offense was three for a two-level where a possessed. to § 2D1.1 increase dangerous USSG in weapon § 2D1.1(b)(1). instructs that [t]he adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. factual USSG findings § 2D1.1 cmt. n.3. underpinning This court application of reviews a the sentence enhancement for clear error; if the issue turns primarily on the legal interpretation of the guidelines, . . . review is de novo. United (4th Cir. 2010). firearm States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 In order to support the USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the weapon was possessed in connection with drug activity that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, although Santiago was not carrying the firearm when he was arrested and no drugs were recovered from Santiago s residence, baggies, digital scales, and a substance frequently cut with drugs were recovered from the same room as the firearm. 3 The Government was not required to prove precisely concurrent acts, and was entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, including the type of firearm involved, to carry its burden. Id. at 629 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under these circumstances, the district court did not err when it found the firearm sufficiently connected to the drug offense. Next, counsel argues that Santiago s sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to provide an individualized assessment of the facts and arguments relevant to sentencing. We review the reasonableness sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. consideration 38, of 51 both (2007). the 572, 575 a Gall v. United review procedural reasonableness of a sentence. F.3d This of and requires substantive Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, only the procedural reasonableness of Santiago s sentence has been questioned. A fail[s] to district court adequately commits explain procedural the chosen error when sentence. 592 F.3d at 575 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). it Lynn, While district judges must provide a particularized assessment as to why the sentence imposed is proper in each case, they need not robotically tick through [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) s [(2006)] every subsection. (4th Cir. United 2006). States Moreover, v. Johnson, when 4 a judge 445 F.3d decides 339, 345 simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. The district court supplied an adequate explanation for the within-Guidelines sentence imposed in this case. The district court stated that, given Santiago s criminal history and the nature of his conduct, a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines would be warranted to give him enough prison time to show respect for the law and learn respect for the law, to protect the public, to deter him from further conduct, as well as to send a message to the community that this kind of conduct won t be tolerated. that even the Nonetheless, the district court determined minimum, eighty-seven-month sentence under the Guidelines would fulfill the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although the district court s explanation was not elaborate or lengthy, it provide[d] a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and was adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). In his pro se supplemental brief, Santiago argues that the introduction of the laboratory report identifying the heroin violated the confrontation However, because the clause report was of the admitted stipulation, Santiago has waived this argument. 5 Sixth Amendment. pursuant to a Santiago also claims that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective by stipulating that the substance recovered was heroin, by failing to object to a compromised juror, and by failing to file a motion to suppress. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal, unless counsel s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). In order to allow for the adequate development of the record, Santiago must bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216-17 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. and sentence. We therefore affirm Santiago s conviction We deny Santiago s motion to substitute counsel. This court requires that counsel inform Santiago, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Santiago requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Santiago. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 6 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
