UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CONSENTINO RODRIGUEZ BAILON, a/k/a Nicanor Vasquez, a/k/a
Carlos Hernandez, a/k/a Pedro Bailon Rodriguez, a/k/a
Constantino Rodriguez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00054-RJC-1)
Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: March 14, 2016
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Jared
P. Martin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Consentino Rodriguez Bailon appeals the district court’s
judgment after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United
States after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated
felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012). The district court sentenced Bailon at the bottom of
his Guidelines range to 46 months in prison. On appeal, Bailon
contends the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable
sentence by failing to adequately address and consider his
arguments for a sentence below his Guidelines range. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
First, we consider whether the district court committed a
significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors or failing to adequately explain
the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we consider whether it is substantively
reasonable, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Id. On appeal, we presume that a sentence
within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
289 (4th Cir. 2012). The presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
2
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
In sentencing, the district court must first correctly
calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing
Guidelines. United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340
(4th Cir. 2013). The court is next required to give the parties
an opportunity to argue for what they believe is an appropriate
sentence, and the court must consider those arguments in light
of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.
When rendering a sentence, the district court must make and
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). While the sentencing court must
state in open court the particular reasons that support its
chosen sentence, the court’s explanation need not be exhaustive.
United States v. Avila, 770 F.3d 1100, 1107-08 (4th Cir. 2014)
(citations omitted); see also United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (court need not explicitly reference
§ 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record). The court’s
explanation must be sufficient “to satisfy the appellate court
that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking
authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
3
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Bailon’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court adequately addressed and considered Bailon’s
arguments for a sentence below his advisory Guidelines range,
and the court reasonably determined that a sentence at the
bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate in this case.
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
4