US v. Danilo Aldublin-Robleto, No. 10-4324 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4324 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANILO ALDUBLIN-ROBLETO, a/k/a Danilo Albudin, a/k/a Danilo Anthony, a/k/a Danila A. Robletto, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cr-00347-PJM-1) Submitted: December 13, 2010 Decided: January 5, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, George J. Hazel, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danilo Aldublin-Robleto appeals the fifty-seven-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to reentry of an alien deported after an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). contends because, that the sentence essentially, individual the assessment of On appeal, Aldublin-Robleto was district the procedurally unreasonable court to facts. refused Finding no make an reversible error, we affirm. In district reviewing court did a not sentence, commit we any must ensure significant that the procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court is not required to robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection. (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 However, the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. need not be elaborate or This individualized assessment lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 2 U.S. at 50) conclude (internal that individualized the footnote district assessment, omitted). court taking Upon provided into review, an we adequate account counsel s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing Aldublin-Robleto s fifty-seven-month sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th 2010) Cir. (providing standard of review for properly preserved procedural sentencing error); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
