UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4324
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANILO ALDUBLIN-ROBLETO, a/k/a Danilo Albudin, a/k/a Danilo
Anthony, a/k/a Danila A. Robletto,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00347-PJM-1)
Submitted: December 13, 2010 Decided: January 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, George J. Hazel, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danilo Aldublin-Robleto appeals the fifty-seven-month
sentence imposed after pleading guilty to reentry of an alien
deported after an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). On appeal, Aldublin-Robleto
contends that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable
because, essentially, the district court refused to make an
individual assessment of the facts. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
In reviewing a sentence, we must ensure that the
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district
court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court “must place on the
record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment
need not be elaborate or lengthy, but 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) (quoting Gall, 552
2
U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). Upon review, we
conclude that the district court provided an adequate
individualized assessment, taking into account counsel’s
arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Aldublin-Robleto’s fifty-seven-month
sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578
(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review for properly
preserved procedural sentencing error); see also Gall, 552 U.S.
at 46.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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.
AFFIRMED
3