US v. Noe Aguilera-Aguila, No. 10-4943 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOE AGUILERA-AGUILA, a/k/a Jose Manuel Rosales, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00061-BO-1) Submitted: May 24, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 17, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Noe Aguilera-Aguila pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of reentering the United States after having been deported as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006). Aguila to timely appealed. The twenty-four district months For the court sentenced imprisonment. reasons that Aguilera- Aguilera-Aguila follow, we vacate Aguilera-Aguila s sentence and remand for resentencing. Included in Aguilera-Aguila s criminal history score was a Manual point assessed § 4A1.1(e) pursuant (2009), to for U.S. having Sentencing committed Guidelines the instant offense within two years after his release from custody for a prior qualifying offense. that his district United sentence court States is On appeal, Aguilera-Aguila contends procedurally failed to Sentencing give unreasonable adequate Commission s because consideration proposed to elimination the the of the § 4A1.1(e) recency enhancement. We review a sentence substantive reasonableness. 51 (2007). considers for both procedural and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, In determining procedural reasonableness, this court whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 2 Id. Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines record an individualized sentence, assessment facts of the case before it. it must based on place the on the particular United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations in original), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). When a claim concerning the reasonableness of a sentence is preserved, this court reviews the issue for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 579 (4th Cir. 2010). If the district court abused its discretion, this court will reverse unless . . . the error was harmless. Id. at 576. Where the district court commits error, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmless. Id. at 585. The Government contends that because Aguilera-Aguila did not object at the sentencing hearing to the assessment of the criminal history point under the USSG § 4A1.1(e) recency enhancement, this court should 3 review for plain error the adequacy of the district court s consideration of the proposed amendment to eliminate the recency enhancement. Government written concedes, Aguilera-Aguila objections. [O]nce a raised party However, as the the raises an issue in objection his in writing, if he subsequently fails to lodge an oral on-the-record objection, the error is nevertheless preserved for appeal. United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Lynn, 592 F.3d at 583-84 (party may preserve its sentencing objections through written arguments prior to sentencing). papers or in-court By filing written objections to the assessment of the single criminal history point under USSG § 4A1.1(e) based on the pending elimination of the recency enhancement, Aguilera-Aguila preserved his issue for appeal. Sentencing courts are statutorily required to state sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010). In this their reasons for imposing a particular case, the sentencing transcript is devoid of any explanation for Aguilera-Aguila s sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately address Aguilera-Aguila s objection and his sentence. Once it is determined that a court abused its discretion, the next inquiry is whether the error was harmless. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. Under the harmless error standard, the [G]overnment may avoid reversal only if it demonstrates that the 4 error did influence not on have the district court s arguments would a substantial result and explicit not and this court consideration have injurious affected can of the effect that say [the or the defendant s] sentence imposed. Boulware, 604 F.3d at 838 (internal quotation marks omitted; alterations in original). The Government cannot meet this burden. Aguila s total offense level was thirteen. § 4A1.1(e) recency enhancement, Aguilera- With the one-point Aguilera-Aguila had seven criminal history points, which resulted in a Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months. table). USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing Had he not received a criminal history point under USSG § 4A1.1(e), he would have had six criminal history points, which would have placed resulting in months. USSG a him in Guidelines ch. 5, pt. criminal range A of history eighteen (sentencing category III, to twenty-four table). Aguilera- Aguila s twenty-four month sentence thus is at the bottom of the Guidelines range with the recency enhancement, but at the top of the Guidelines range if the recency enhancement is removed. The single criminal history point under USSG § 4A1.1(e) increased Aguilera-Aguila s significant cannot criminal impact demonstrate on his that history category Guidelines and range. Aguilera-Aguila s thus The sentence had a Government was not affected by the district court s failure to explicitly consider 5 Aguilar-Aguila s objections pertaining to the proposed Guidelines amendment to eliminate the recency provision because it cannot show that, if the court had adequately considered the proposed amendment, it would not have downwardly departed or varied from the Guidelines range. Accordingly, we vacate Aguilera-Aguila s sentence and remand dispense for resentencing with oral consistent argument with because this the opinion. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 6

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.