UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
YEEDSER D. PALACIOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00271-TMC-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 27, 2014
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard W. Anderson, III, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. ANDERSON III,
LLC, Clemson, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N.
Nettles, United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yeedser Daniel Palacios appeals his seventy-five month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to aggravated
identity theft and conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue
Service. On appeal, Palacios argues that his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court inadequately explained
its reasons for rejecting certain mitigation arguments he raised
at sentencing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential “abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 39, 51 (2007). We first review the sentence
for “significant procedural error,” including improper
calculation of the Guidelines range, inadequate consideration of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failure to
sufficiently explain the sentence imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. Only if we find the sentence procedurally reasonable need
we consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
To adequately explain a sentence, the district court
must “place on the record an individualized assessment based on
the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The explanation need not be elaborate or
lengthy but must be adequate to permit meaningful appellate
2
review. Carter, 564 F.3d at 330. The “court must demonstrate
that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned
basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.”
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “Where the
defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for
imposing a different sentence . . . , a district judge should
address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected
those arguments.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Palacios primarily asserts that the district court
committed procedural sentencing error by selecting a sentence
without adequately explaining why it rejected his arguments
regarding the impact his incarceration would have on his family.
He cites empirical data demonstrating the effects of parental
incarceration on children, and adds that his incarceration will
have a significant financial impact on his family. He further
notes that the court provided no explanation for denying his
requests for self-surrender and placement in a facility near
Miami, Florida. He argues that resentencing is required because
the district court’s failure to address these issues explicitly
on the record prevents us from determining whether it actually
considered them.
3
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Palacios did
not raise in the district court his arguments regarding the
impact of parental incarceration on children and the loss of his
income. See United States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877, 887 (4th
Cir. 2011) (declining to address argument raised for first time
on appeal). Moreover, the court conducted a detailed analysis
of Palacios’ offense and personal circumstances, including his
family and finances, and provided a thorough explanation of its
reasoning in selecting a sentence, specifically tying the
sentence to multiple § 3553(a) factors. The court’s analysis
demonstrated that it considered Palacios’ family circumstances—
in particular, his five children in Florida and child support
obligations—in selecting the sentence. Palacios’ arguments
regarding his family also were not particularly strong or
well-developed, as he did not demonstrate how his family’s
experience took his circumstances outside the heartland of
sentencing cases or outweighed the seriousness of the crime and
impact on the victims. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d
832, 839-40 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing as “weak” argument that
defendant should receive below-Guidelines sentence because her
incarceration would negatively impact her children and students,
where she provided no evidence that her circumstances were
atypical).
4
While Palacios is correct that the district court did
not give specific reasons for rejecting his requests for
self-placement in Miami and for self-surrender, we conclude that
no relief is warranted. Insofar as Palacios challenges the
denial of his request for self-surrender, the claim is moot.
See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008)
(finding sentencing challenge moot when “there is no wrong to
remedy” and the court “cannot grant any effectual relief”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, it is apparent
that the district court meaningfully considered Palacios’
request for placement in Florida but exercised its discretion to
defer to the Bureau of Prisons. Given the court’s thorough
explanation of the basis for its sentence, we find no abuse of
discretion in the court’s failure to address these arguments
further. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5