UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR DANIEL VILLANUEVA-CORTES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00340-RWT-1)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: July 3, 2014
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Fischer, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF FISCHER & PUTZI, P.A.,
Glen Burnie, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Kelly O. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Colin Allred, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hector Daniel Villanueva-Cortes pleaded guilty to one
count of reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326 (2012). The district court sentenced Villanueva-Cortes
to eighteen months’ imprisonment, which included an upward
variance of twelve months from the high end of the properly
calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. He appeals, claiming
that the district court improperly relied upon the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities when it varied upward. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012). Concluding that the court did not
err, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 49-51. If the sentence is free of significant procedural
error, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness,
2
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
at 51.
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted), and must
“adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. “Regardless of whether the
district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines
sentence, it must place on the record an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted).
When a district court imposes a sentence that falls outside of
the applicable Guidelines range, this Court considers “whether
the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its
decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the
extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir.
2007). In conducting this review, we “must give due deference
to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on
a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
3
We conclude that the district court did not improperly
rely upon the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
under § 3553(a)(6) to the exclusion of the other statutory
sentencing factors. The court described how each sentencing
factor related to Villanueva-Cortes’ individual circumstances
and why that factor supported an upward variance. We also
conclude that the court did not improperly rely upon the
sentence imposed in another case to determine the length of the
variance. After reviewing the circumstances, we hold that the
sentence imposed, including the 12 month upward variance, was
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. 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
4