US v. Rigoberto Ocampo, No. 15-4337 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RIGOBERTO MORALES OCAMPO, a/k/a Rangel Altamirano-Samura, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00061-MR-DLH-1) Submitted: January 20, 2016 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, February 10, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, Jared P. Martin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rigoberto Morales Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, to one count of illegal reentry after removal subsequent to sustaining an aggravated felony conviction, § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). in violation of 8 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Ocampo to 46 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a 2-year term of supervised release. is procedurally On appeal, Ocampo argues that his sentence unreasonable because the district court considered Ocampo’s need for medical treatment in determining the length of his term of incarceration, in violation of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews any federal sentence for reasonableness, applying the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We first consider the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, which requires us to evaluate whether the district court committed a significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range or failing relevant sentencing factors. court’s precedent, the to appropriately consider Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. asserted Tapia error the Under this pertains to the procedural reasonableness of Ocampo’s sentence, as it alleges 2 that the sentencing court considered a prohibited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factor in determining the defendant’s sentence. * See United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that Tapia error is “a procedural error under Gall”). In Tapia, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (2012) “precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2391. Although Ocampo contends otherwise, our review reveals of object” at the record the sentencing that hearing defense “on counsel the “did grounds not asserted here,” and therefore, we review the Tapia claim for plain error. Bennett, 698 F.3d at 199. To establish plain error, Ocampo must demonstrate that (1) the district court erred, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 200 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 734 (1993)). We discern no plain Tapia error on this record. As we explained in United States v. Lemon, 777 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2015), for reference a to Tapia the claim to succeed, defendant’s the sentencing rehabilitative * needs court’s must be Ocampo does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 3 causally related to the court’s sentencing determination. See Lemon, 777 F.3d at 174 (marshalling sister circuit authority and observing that it is “unlikely that a court has committed Tapia error unless it has considered rehabilitation for the specific purpose of imposing or lengthening a prison sentence”). extent that Ocampo’s medical needs were To the considered at sentencing, it is clear that the court addressed them in ruling on Ocampo’s request for a downward departure based Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.4, p.s. (2014). on U.S. But it was the other, proper § 3553(a) factors — namely, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to provide both general and specific deterrence — that “motivated the court’s decision to impose its sentence.” at 175. Lemon, 777 F.3d We thus reject Ocampo’s contention that there was a causal connection between the selected sentence and the medical concerns defense counsel identified to support her request for a downward departure. 1160, 1170 (10th See Cir. United 2013) States (rejecting v. Naramor, Tapia claim 726 F.3d based on sentencing court’s consideration of defendant’s need for mental health treatment, and concluding that court “did not tie the length of” treatment defendant’s but, rather, sentence had to his “rejected needed [d]efendant’s that his mental illness warranted leniency”). 4 mental health arguments Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
