US v. Gustavo Henriquez-Rivas, No. 14-4306 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4306 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GUSTAVO ALBERTO Rivas-Henriquez, HENRIQUEZ-RIVAS, a/k/a Gustavo Alberto Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00483-GLR-1) Submitted: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson, Appellate Attorney, Perie Reiko Koyama, Law Clerk, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Zachary A. Myers, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gustavo Alberto Henriquez-Rivas appeals his fourteenmonth sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unauthorized reentry of a removed alien after a felony conviction, violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). argues that the district court imposed in On appeal, he a procedurally unreasonable sentence by failing to address his argument that the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. Finding no error, we affirm. 1 Following United States v. Booker, (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). requires us to ensure that significant procedural error. the 543 U.S. 220 Gall v. United The first step in this review district court committed no United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to calculate calculating) (or improperly the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based 1 Although Henriquez-Rivas was released from custody on September 26, 2014, the appeal is not moot because it is conceivable that “a favorable appellate decision might prompt the district court to reduce [his] three-year term of supervised release.” See United States v. Kleiner, 765 F.3d 155, 156 n.1 (2d Cir. 2014). 2 on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district court, we review unless we conclude States v. Lynn, instance, if for “that 592 “an abuse of the F.3d error 572, aggrieved discretion” was 576 (4th party and will harmless.” reverse Cir. United 2010). sufficiently For alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation” by drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence different than the one ultimately sufficiently “preserves its claim.” imposed,” Id. at 578. the party However, this court reviews unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576-77. Because Henriquez-Rivas repeats on appeal arguments he raised in the district court, we review for abuse of discretion. Upon review, we discern no Henriquez-Rivas’ fourteen-month sentence. procedural error in A district court need not provide a “comprehensive, detailed opinion” as long as it has satisfied the appellate court that it “has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) 3 United States v. Engle, (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Here, the district court allowed the parties to file multiple memoranda and/or letters in support of their sentencing positions and further considered their arguments at sentencing. Notably, Henriquez-Rivas thoroughly presented his argument that the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, both in writing and before the district court at sentencing. The district court listened to the parties’ positions, acknowledged the “thorough sentencing memoranda,” and stated that the court “kn[e]w exactly what the arguments” were in the case. (J.A. 47). The district court proceeded to explicitly invoke the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, rooting its chosen sentence in the seriousness of Henriquez-Rivas’ offense, the need for deterrence in light of his repeated illegal reentries, and the need to protect the public from his violent behavior. Although the district court “might have said more” to explain its rejection of the argument raised by Henriquez-Rivas, see Rita, 551 U.S. at 359, its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow effectively review the reasonableness of the sentence.” 4 [us] to United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because expressed in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 Henriquez-Rivas does not challenge reasonableness of his sentence on appeal. 5 the substantive
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.
