US v. Rafael Wals, No. 13-4233 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL WALS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00057-D-1) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 1, 2014 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rafael Wals pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count (2012). of bribery, The in district months in prison. violation court of sentenced 18 U.S.C. Wals to § 201(b)(2) twenty-seven In doing so, the district court applied a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice and declined an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, rejecting Wals objections as untimely and meritless. court stated that, even if its In addition, the district Guidelines calculations were incorrect, it would impose the same sentence as a variance under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Wals timely appeals. Wals argues on appeal that the district court erred in finding his objections at sentencing untimely and in rejecting these objections on the merits. Wals contends that his twenty- seven-month sentence was unreasonable. Even assuming that the district court erred in applying an enhancement for obstruction of justice and refusing to apply an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, we harmless. Puckett See conclude v. that United the claimed States, 556 errors U.S. 129, are 141 (2009) (observing that procedural errors at sentencing . . . are routinely subject to harmlessness review. ) A procedural sentencing error is harmless when we have (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the 2 same result even if it had decided the [G]uidelines issue the other way, and (2) a determination that the sentence would be reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the defendant s favor. F.3d 119, omitted). 123 (4th United States v. Savillon Matute, 636 Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks In this case, the district court plainly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it erroneously calculated Wals Guidelines range. Thus, the first prong of the harmlessness analysis is satisfied. As for the second prong, we have little difficulty in concluding that the imposed sentence is reasonable. The district court conducted a thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, referring to the serious nature of the offense, Wals lack of respect for the law, and the need for general deterrence. Wals has failed to show that his twenty-seven-month sentence is unreasonable given the record and the § 3553(a) factors. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
