US v. Alvaro Ala, No. 10-4839 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4839 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Balmore Alas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1) Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvaro Ezequeil Alas was sentenced to 224 months of imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but nevertheless arguing that the sentence imposed is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to make an individualized assessment of the facts presented and failed to sufficiently state the reasons for the sentence imposed. filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the district Alas court plainly erred in imposing a two-level leadership role sentencing enhancement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In determining the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 2 Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). imposed a United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d Where, as here, the district court within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation less extensive, while still individualized. may be United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010). Generally, a court provides an adequate explanation for a Guidelines sentence when it 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 typical. the judge has found that the case before him is United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Counsel did not preserve a claim of error, and thus our review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 579-80 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence. Moreover, Alas fails to show that the lack of a more detailed explanation had a prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005). We review the district court s decision to apply a sentencing adjustment based on 3 the defendant s role in the offense for clear error. 224 (4th Cir. 2002). enhancement if he supervisor in any United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, A defendant qualifies for a two-level was an organizer, criminal leader, activity. Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2010). manager, U.S. or Sentencing Leadership over only one other participant is sufficient as long as there is some control exercised. United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level leadership enhancement. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Alas conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Alas, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Alas requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and materials legal before for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Alas. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
