US v. Hector Villanueva-Cortes, No. 14-4043 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HECTOR DANIEL VILLANUEVA-CORTES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00340-RWT-1) Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: July 3, 2014 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Fischer, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF FISCHER & PUTZI, P.A., Glen Burnie, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kelly O. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Colin Allred, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hector Daniel Villanueva-Cortes pleaded guilty to one count of reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2012). to eighteen The district court sentenced Villanueva-Cortes months imprisonment, which included an upward variance of twelve months from the high end of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. He appeals, claiming that the district court improperly relied upon the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities when it varied upward. U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012). See 18 Concluding that the court did not err, we affirm. We review deferential States, a sentence abuse-of-discretion for 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 reasonableness, court properly range, gave appropriate calculated the consider In determining whether the defendant s an opportunity considered the parties sentence, we Id. at 51. 18 the advisory to Guidelines argue U.S.C. district for § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. at 49-51. an Id. If the sentence is free of significant procedural error, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness, 2 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 564 marks F.3d and 325, 328 emphasis (4th omitted), Cir. 2009) and must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review sentencing. and to promote the Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. district court sentence, it imposes must an above, place on perception of fair Regardless of whether the below, the or record within-Guidelines an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). When a district court imposes a sentence that falls outside of 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 extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. States 2007). v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 to the United (4th Cir. In conducting this review, we must give due deference to the district court s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. 51. 3 Gall, 552 U.S. at We conclude that the district court did not improperly rely upon the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6) to sentencing factors. factor and to that factor conclude that exclusion of the other statutory The court described how each sentencing related why the Villanueva-Cortes the supported court did an not individual upward circumstances variance. improperly rely We also upon the sentence imposed in another case to determine the length of the variance. After reviewing the circumstances, we hold that the sentence imposed, including the 12 month upward variance, was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this Court and argument would not 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.
