UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADOLFO AMAYA PORTILLO, a/k/a Skyper, a/k/a Skipper, a/k/a Napa,
a/k/a Pana,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00463-AJT-3)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John C. Kiyonaga, JOHN C. KIYONAGA LAW OFFICE, Alexandria,
Virginia; Lana M. Manitta, RICH, ROSENTHAL, BRINCEFIELD,
MANITTA, DZUBIN & KROEGER, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Morris R.
Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adolfo Amaya Portillo pled guilty without a plea
agreement to using a firearm during a crime of violence causing
death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (j) (2006). He
was sentenced below the Sentencing Guidelines range to 480
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the district
court erred in assessing a two-level enhancement to his offense
level for an aggravating role in the offense, U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2009), and that the court failed
to take into account certain mitigating factors in its
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. We
affirm.
We review Portillo’s sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51, (2007). “The first step in this review requires us to
ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range.” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks, citations and alterations
omitted). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Portillo first claims that the district court erred in
assessing a two-level enhancement based on its finding that
2
Portillo was “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in
the subject offense. See USSG § 3B1.1(c). In assessing whether
the district court properly applied the Guidelines, we review
the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. Osborne, 514 F.3d at 387. “The court’s
ruling regarding a role adjustment is a factual determination
reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d
125, 147-48 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 657 (2009).
Reversal for clear error is warranted only where this court is
left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 337
(4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did
not err in applying the USSG § 3B1.1 enhancement.
Portillo next argues that the district court erred by
imposing a sentence that was substantively unreasonable.
Specifically, he claims that the court gave insufficient
consideration to certain mitigating factors, namely his history,
as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Portillo’s claim is
belied by the record. The district court adequately addressed
the factors Portillo proffered in mitigation, granted a downward
variance from the Guidelines range, and provided a detailed
explanation for the chosen sentence. We conclude Portillo’s
sentence was reasonable.
3
We therefore affirm the judgment of 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.
AFFIRMED
4