US v. Florentino Castaneda-Pelaez, No. 13-4283 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FLORENTINO CASTANEDA-PELAEZ, a/k/a Florentino Palaez, a/k/a Alejandro Mendoza-Rivielo, Castanada- Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00390-NCT-1) Submitted: October 28, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Florentino Castaneda-Pelaez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to re-entering the United States after previously being deported, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006). Castaneda-Pelaez argues that his above-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. We disagree and affirm his sentence. Castaneda-Pelaez was first deported from the United States in April 1993, following a state court conviction for assault. States Castaneda-Pelaez subsequently returned to the United and involving was convicted family of members. three In separate 1998, violent offenses Castaneda-Pelaez was convicted of illegal re-entry of a deported alien and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment. He again returned to the United States and was again convicted of illegal re-entry and received a sentence of 36 months imprisonment. deported for a third time in February 2010. Castaneda-Pelaez was He was arrested in North Carolina in September 2011 on unrelated charges, using an alias. After he was identified using a fingerprint database, Castaneda-Pelaez was again charged with illegal re-entry by a previously deported alien. He pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. Based on a total offense level of 10 and a criminal history category of III, Castaneda-Pelaez s advisory Guidelines 2 range was 10 to 16 months imprisonment. However, the district court granted the Government s request for an upward variance, sentencing Castaneda-Pelaez to 24 months imprisonment. We deferential States, review sentences for abuse-of-discretion 552 U.S. 38, 41, reasonableness standard. 51 (2007). Gall This under v. review a United entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. procedural district reasonableness, court properly this Id. at 51. court calculated In determining considers the whether defendant s the advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. at 49-51. error, Id. If the sentence is free of significant procedural this Court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 51. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, United States (internal v. Carter, quotation marks 564 F.3d and 325, emphasis 328 (4th omitted), Cir. and 2009) must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review sentencing. and to promote Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. 3 the perception of fair 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 decisionmaking authority. exercising [its] own legal United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). that falls outside of When a district court imposes a sentence the applicable Guidelines range, this Court considers whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. United States v. Hernandez Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). In conducting this review, this court must give due deference to the district court s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Our review of the record discloses that the district court provided an adequate explanation for the variant sentence imposed. Considered in the context of the entire sentencing hearing, the district court s statements provide a sufficient explanation to satisfy this Court that it had considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) States, 552 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). 4 United States v. Boulware, (quoting Rita v. United Specifically, the court identified Castaneda-Pelaez s violent criminal history as well as his prior incarcerations for the identical offense, noting that the 36 months he got back in 2007 for re-entering without permission didn t district court dissuade adequately his return. explained sentence and committed no other error. We the find that the above-Guidelines Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5