US v. Alfredo Velez, No. 10-4553 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALFREDO GOMEZ VELEZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00320-F-1) Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: February 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury charged Alfredo Gomez Velez with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count One), and two counts of mailing firearms without authorization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1715 (2006) (Counts Two and Three). Gomez Velez pleaded guilty to all three counts without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Gomez Velez to sixty-three months imprisonment on Count One and twenty-four months each on Counts Two and followed. Three, all to be served concurrently. This appeal We affirm. On appeal, Gomez Velez argues that the district court committed significant procedural error when it failed to adequately address his request for a sentence at the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009) range based on his family ties. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential States, 552 abuse U.S. of 38, discretion 51 standard. (2007). This Gall review v. United requires consideration of the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. (4th Cir. 2010). Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 Gomez Velez challenges reasonableness of his sentence. 2 only the procedural A district court must state its reasons for imposing its chosen sentence, providing sufficient detail to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for decisionmaking authority. 338, 356 (2007). exercising [its] own legal Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. Failure to do so constitutes procedural error. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. However, when a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. We conclude that the district court adequately discharged its responsibility to explain the sentence imposed with sufficient detail to allow for meaningful appellate review. As in Rita, the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments. Rita, 551 U.S. at 359. After Gomez Velez made his argument, the district court asked the Government if it wished to respond. The Government reiterated its position that a sentence at the upper end of the Guidelines would be appropriate conviction for the same offense. given Gomez Velez s previous The court imposed a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range, stating that it did so because Gomez judiciary Velez s offered criminal conduct. no previous deterrence encounter to his with the engaging in federal future The district court s statement that no fine 3 would be imposed because Gomez Velez lacked the ability to pay a fine in addition dependents, Gomez Velez s to providing demonstrates family that circumstances. financial the We support court therefore to his considered find Gomez Velez s sentence procedurally reasonable. 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 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.
