US v. Faysuri Villamil, No. 14-4246 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FAYSURI VILLAMIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00277-BO-1) Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Faysuri violation of sentenced her Villamil 18 imprisonment. U.S.C. to a pled § 1343 guilty (2012). Guidelines Villamil to fraud, The district of thirty sentence appeals, wire claiming that the in court months’ district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying her request for a downward variance. We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In explaining a sentence, the district court is not required to “robotically tick through . . . every subsection [of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)], within-Guidelines sentence.” particularly when imposing a United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the court “must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it . . . [that] provide[s] a rationale tailored to the particular case at review.’” hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)) (internal citation and footnote omitted). Villamil argued at sentencing that a downward variance was warranted because her conviction subjected her to deportation, which would result in great hardship to her, and because she had a good work history and no criminal record. 2 Although the district court mentioned some of these issues during its questioning of Villamil, the court gave no indication why it rejected her arguments for a downward variance and selected the sentence it did, other than the statement that the chosen sentence was within the Guidelines range. This statement is insufficient to provide an individualized explanation of the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we vacate Villamil’s sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion about the merits of Villamil’s request for a variance. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 3