UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUCAS CASTE-LOPEZ, a/k/a Hector Villasenor-Rodriguez, a/k/a
Doroteo Malacara-Arango,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00115-F-1)
Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and GREGORY, 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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lucas Caste-Lopez appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
eighteen months’ imprisonment. Caste-Lopez argues that his
sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court
failed to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors and make an individualized assessment based on the facts
before it. We agree, and vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings.
Because Caste-Lopez has not preserved this issue, it
is subject to plain error review. Under the plain error
standard, the defendant must show that an error was made, is
plain, and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed
statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this
determination, we first consider whether the sentence is
unreasonable. Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry takes a more
‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise of discretion’ than reasonableness review for
[G]uidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d
652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).
2
The district court’s discretion is not unlimited.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court commits procedural error by failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence and to provide an
individualized assessment based on the facts. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A court need not be as
detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it
must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still
‘must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.’”
Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657).
The district court procedurally erred when it failed
to provide an individualized assessment of the relevant facts in
imposing sentence. Other than stating that it “considered the
policies and statements in revocation contained in Chapter 7 of
the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” the district court provided no
explanation for its eighteen-month sentence. Moreover, the
court made no mention of the applicable § 3553(a) factors and
did not discuss Caste-Lopez’s personal history, his argument in
favor of a concurrent sentence, or the Government’s argument in
favor of a consecutive sentence.
Upon finding this procedural error, our next step
under Crudup is to determine whether the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable,” under the definition of “plain” used in
plain-error analysis. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. “For a sentence
3
to be plainly unreasonable . . . it must run afoul of clearly
settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548.
“[T]he district court’s obligation to provide some
basis for appellate review when imposing a revocation sentence,
however minimal that basis may be, has been settled in this
Circuit since at least Moulden.” Id. Accordingly, the district
court failed to provide any reasons for its sentence in
disregard of clear precedent and was thus plainly unreasonable.
This error, when considered with the district court’s
incorrect calculation of the Guidelines range, * affected
Caste-Lopez’s substantial rights. Under the plain error
standard, Caste-Lopez has the burden of showing that the
procedural errors had a prejudicial effect on the sentence
imposed. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1433
n.4 (2009). Considering that the district court sentenced
Caste-Lopez at the highest end of what it thought to be the
Guidelines range, we conclude a non-speculative basis exists to
infer prejudice that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a), p.s.,
provides a sentencing range of eight to fourteen months for a
Grade B violation and a category III criminal history, rather
than twelve to eighteen months, as stated by the district court.
4
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (discussing fourth prong of
plain error test).
We therefore vacate Caste-Lopez’s sentence and remand
for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5