US v. Apolinar Santiago-Albarran, No. 10-5154 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. APOLINAR Lavarran, SANTIAGO-ALBARRAN, a/k/a Apolinar Santiago- Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-TDS-1) Submitted: May 10, 2011 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 1, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Apolinar Santiago-Albarran appeals his sentence of 84 months in prison after he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 51.6 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). crime, in violation of 18 Santiago-Albarran s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in counsel s opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court imposed an unreasonable term of imprisonment. Santiago-Albarran was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We review discretion standard. (2007). that sentence under a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, a We affirm. district such as court committed improperly no calculating significant the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). procedurally reasonable, we then United States v. If the sentence is consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 2 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In calculate the opportunity the Guidelines to appropriate. Cir. sentencing, argue district range for and court give whatever should the first parties sentence they an deem United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th 2007). The district court should then consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by either party. Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make and place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. In explaining the chosen sentence, the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority, but when doing Rita the so v. judge will United not decides simply to apply necessarily require 551 338, States, U.S. the lengthy 356 Guidelines, explanation. (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when it imposes 3 a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Santiago-Albarran s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to 84 months in prison. The district court properly determined his Guidelines range was 21 to 27 months for the drug charge, plus a consecutive 60-month term on the firearm charge. After hearing from the parties, the district court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, reasonably determined a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range on the drug charge was appropriate, and adequately explained its decision. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If the client requests believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
