US v. Trinidad Balderas-Sanchez, No. 15-4475 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4475 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRINIDAD BALDERAS-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Leonet Arias, a/k/a Leonetta Arias, a/k/a Leonetta Artias, a/k/a Manuel Bandero, a/k/a Manuel I Bandero, a/k/a Daniuel Guzman, a/k/a Bladimirs Ramines, a/k/a Manases Torres, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15cr-00004-PWG-1) Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 12, 2016 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Conor Mulroe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The district court sentenced Trinidad Balderas-Sanchez to 48 months’ imprisonment after he pled guilty to illegal reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). Balderas-Sanchez argues on appeal that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness using an abuse-of-discretion standard. 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). reviewed for Id. at 51. both Gall v. United States, Under this standard, a sentence is procedural and substantive reasonableness. A district court’s failure to adequately explain its sentence is a “significant procedural error.” Id. Balderas-Sanchez argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address his arguments in mitigation and, thus, failed to adequately explain his sentence. In evaluating a sentencing court’s explanation of a selected sentence, we have consistently held that, while the district court must consider the statutory factors and explain the sentence, [18 U.S.C.] “it need § 3553(a) not robotically [(2012)] factors.” tick through United States the v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 153 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). an At the same time, the district court “must make individualized assessment based 2 on the facts presented.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. While the “individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court agreed with Balderas-Sanchez’s argument that a sentence within the Guidelines range was not warranted. However, the district court did not agree with the extent of Balderas-Sanchez’s proposed variance, noting that a sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment was needed to deter Balderas-Sanchez and others from returning to the United States illegally. Moreover, the district court considered Balderas- Sanchez’s argument about the national average sentence for an illegal-reentry case, finding (J.A. 127). * dispositive.” it “informative . . . but not Thus, we conclude that the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence. Because the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” at 51. calculated “Any sentence Guidelines that range is is within or Gall, 552 U.S. below presumptively a properly reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. * “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties. 3 denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by sentence measured against showing Balderas-Sanchez unreasonable the that the . . . § 3553(a) argues because that it his we conclude that presumption of he reasonableness unreasonable factors.” sentence creates disparities, is is Id. failed afforded his to While substantively unwarranted has when sentencing overcome the below-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
