UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTURO MEDEL-MORAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-JAB-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arturo Medel-Moran pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and he was
sentenced by the district court to fifty-two months’
imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether
Medel-Moran’s sentence is reasonable. Counsel subsequently
filed a supplemental brief, contending that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors and to consider the sentencing argument in the
context of those factors. The Government asserts that there is
no procedural error because the district court’s explanation is
sufficient. Alternatively, the Government contends that the
error is harmless because defense counsel’s sentencing arguments
are not compelling. Medel-Moran was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. “Procedural reasonableness evaluates the method used to
2
determine a defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In contrast,
“[s]ubstantive reasonableness examines the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id.
This court must assess whether the district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered
the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation
must accompany every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because counsel preserved his procedural challenge to
the sentence by arguing for a sentence different from that
received by Medel-Moran, this court’s review is for an abuse of
discretion. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581, 583-84; cf. United
States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing claim of procedural unreasonableness for plain error
because defendant did not argue for sentence different from
sentence he received). If the district court procedurally erred
and thus abused its discretion, this court must reverse unless
the error is harmless. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581, 585.
3
We conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in failing to place on the record an individualized
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors relating to Medel-Moran.
“Sentencing courts are statutorily required to state their
reasons for imposing a chosen sentence.” United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c) (2006). In this case, the sentencing transcript is
devoid of any such explanation.
“[B]ecause there is no indication that the district
court considered the defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments prior to
sentencing him,” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585, and the court did not
explain its sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that the
procedural error is not harmless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case. For the reasons set forth, we vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing. We, of course, indicate
no view as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon Medel-
Moran, leaving that determination, in the first instance, to the
district court. 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
4