UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL WALS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00057-D-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 1, 2014
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Wals pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
one count of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)
(2012). The district court sentenced Wals to twenty-seven
months in prison. In doing so, the district court applied a
sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice and declined
an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, rejecting Wals’
objections as untimely and meritless. In addition, the district
court stated that, even if its Guidelines calculations were
incorrect, it would impose the same sentence as a variance under
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Wals
timely appeals.
Wals argues on appeal that the district court erred in
finding his objections at sentencing untimely and in rejecting
these objections on the merits. Wals contends that his twenty-
seven-month sentence was unreasonable. Even assuming that the
district court erred in applying an enhancement for obstruction
of justice and refusing to apply an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility, we conclude that the claimed errors are
harmless. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 141
(2009) (observing that “procedural errors at sentencing . . .
are routinely subject to harmlessness review.”)
A procedural sentencing error is harmless when we have
“(1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the
2
same result even if it had decided the [G]uidelines issue the
other way, and (2) a determination that the sentence would be
reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in
the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Savillon–Matute, 636
F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted). In this case, the district court plainly stated that
it would have imposed the same sentence even if it erroneously
calculated Wals’ Guidelines range. Thus, the first prong of the
harmlessness analysis is satisfied. As for the second prong, we
have little difficulty in concluding that the imposed sentence
is reasonable. The district court conducted a thorough analysis
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, referring to the
serious nature of the offense, Wals’ lack of respect for the
law, and the need for general deterrence. Wals has failed to
show that his twenty-seven-month sentence is unreasonable given
the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
For the foregoing reasons, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3