UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ROMERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00527-GLR-1)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Justin S. Herring, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Romero was convicted following a jury trial of
illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326, 1101(A)(43) (2012) (Count One), and possession of a
firearm and of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012) (Counts Two and Three). Romero
appeals the 180-month sentence imposed for his illegal reentry
conviction, asserting that the district court erred in failing
to adequately state its reasons for the above-Guidelines
sentence. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). The error asserted by Romero, failing to
adequately explain the sentence imposed, would constitute a
significant procedural error. Id.; United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Such an explanation is required
“to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the
perception of fair sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
Here, we conclude that the district court adequately
explained its variance sentence. Explicitly referencing the
sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court provided a
detailed rationale for its sentence. The court stated that the
180-month sentence was warranted in light of Romero’s history of
violence and leadership role in a gang. The court also noted
2
the extremely seriously nature of the offense and the need for
adequate deterrence to Romero and similarly-situated
individuals. Finally, the court explained the need to protect
the public from Romero, who has demonstrated “extraordinarily
violent behavior,” has expressed no desire to disaffiliate from
the gang, and became a gang leader at a relatively young age.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did
not commit the procedural sentencing error asserted by Romero.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3