UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR ABISAI RAMIREZ-RAMOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00134-MR-DHL-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: March 19, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ross H. Richardson, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Andrew Murray, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Omar Abisai Ramirez-Ramos pled guilty to illegal reentry of a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012) (Count 1), and unlawful transportation of illegal
aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(i) (2012)
(Count 2). From an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months, the district
court imposed an upward variant sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. Ramirez-Ramos
argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. King, 673
F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012). This review requires consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we examine, among other factors, 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)
(2012) sentencing factors, selected a sentence based on facts that were not clearly
erroneous, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. Only after
determining that the sentence is procedurally reasonable do we consider whether it is
substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at
51.
In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we must “consider whether
the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a
2
sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted). If “the variance is a substantial one, we must more carefully scrutinize the
reasoning offered by the district court in support of the sentence. The farther the court
diverges from the advisory guideline range, the more compelling the reasons for the
divergence must be.” United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2006)
(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “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.” United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We conclude that Ramirez-Ramos’ sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court was actively engaged in the sentencing hearing, heard
argument from counsel and allocution from Ramirez-Ramos, explicitly discussed several
of the § 3553(a) factors and applied them to the facts of Ramirez-Ramos’ case, did not
analyze any impermissible factors, and did not ignore Ramirez-Ramos’ mitigating
arguments. We further conclude that the court sufficiently explained the factors it
considered in imposing Ramirez-Ramos’ upward variant sentence, including Ramirez-
Ramos’ multiple prior deportations, the fact that Ramirez-Ramos returned very quickly
every time he was deported, the fact that Ramirez-Ramos had already been prosecuted
once for illegal reentry with no deterrent effect, and the fact that Ramirez-Ramos’ illegal
behavior appeared to be escalating. Consideration of these factors was not inconsistent
with any expressed positions of the Sentencing Commission, and the factors were not
3
already reflected in Ramirez-Ramos’ Guidelines range, which was calculated based on
Count 2. We conclude, therefore, that the court reasonably determined that a sentence
longer than the Guidelines’ recommended sentence was necessary to deter Ramirez-
Ramos from engaging in further crimes.
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