US v. Enrique Coronado, No. 10-4822 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4822 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ENRIQUE CORONADO, Defendant Appellant.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-00073-JAB-1) Submitted: April 12, 2011 Decided: May 6, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arza Feldman, FELDMAN AND FELDMAN, Uniondale, New York, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Enrique Coronado five-month sentence conspiracy to § 846 (2006). appeals imposed distribute his conviction following cocaine, in his and guilty violation of sixty- plea 21 to U.S.C. On appeal, Coronado contends that the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea because the factual basis failed to was insufficient adequately explain and that the his district sentence. court Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Prior to accepting a defendant s guilty plea, the [district] court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). The district court need only be subjectively satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis for a conclusion that the defendant committed all of the elements of the offense. United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the offense conduct as set forth in the factual basis accompanying the plea agreement as sufficient to support Coronado s guilty plea. See id. (reviewing acceptance of guilty plea for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 139 (4th Cir.) (stating elements of offense), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 657 (2009). 2 Coronado unreasonable also because contends the explain that sentence. that district court his sentence failed to was adequately In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court did not commit any significant 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. district Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court is not required to robotically tick The through United States v. Johnson, 445 § 3553(a) s every subsection. F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and United adequate States (quoting Gall, v. to permit Carter, 552 U.S. meaningful 564 at F.3d 50) 325, appellate 330 (internal (4th footnote review. Cir. 2009) omitted). With regard to a sentence within the Guidelines range, [g]enerally, an adequate explanation . . . is provided when the district court indicates that it is rest[ing] [its] decision upon the Commission s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that the case before him is typical. 3 United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). Because counsel raises the claimed error for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 standard). U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (detailing plain error Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court s explanation, although brief, was adequate under Carter. Thus, the district court did not commit reversible procedural error in imposing Coronado s sentence. 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.
