UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4429
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN ERALDO RAMIREZ, a/k/a Benigno A. Medrano Centano,
a/k/a Benigo Medrano-Centeno, a/k/a Benigo Amilcar Centeno-
Meddrano, a/k/a Benigno Medrano, a/k/a Carlos Alberto
Samayoa, a/k/a Melvin Ramirez, a/k/a Melvin E. Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00584-JCC-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, W. Todd Watson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Stacy M. Chaffin, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Eraldo Ramirez pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry after removal following his conviction of an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (2006). The
district court sentenced him to eighty-four months’ imprisonment
and a term of three years’ supervised release. On appeal,
Ramirez challenges the procedural reasonableness of the
sentence, contending that the district court failed to
adequately explain the imposition of a three-year term of
supervised release when he was to be deported after serving his
term of imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 5D1.1(c) & cmt. n.5 (2011); see USSG app. C., amend.
756 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). We affirm.
When rendering a sentence, the district court “must
adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).
However, a district court is not required to discuss the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors in a checklist
fashion. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.
2006). Furthermore, “[w]hen imposing a sentence within the
Guidelines, . . . the explanation need not be elaborate or
lengthy.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th
Cir. 2010).
2
On appeal, we review a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at
41. Because Ramirez did not object below to the adequacy of the
district court’s explanation for the sentence it imposed, our
review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
577–78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 731–32 (1993) (detailing plain error standard).
After review of the sentencing transcript and the
parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court adequately
explained its imposition of a three-year term of supervised
release. The court considered Ramirez’s significant criminal
history and multiple prior unauthorized entries into the United
States as well as the § 3553(a) factors. Taking the facts and
circumstances of Ramirez’s case into consideration, the court
created a special condition of release, a prohibition against
unauthorized reentry. Although the court did not specifically
tie the § 3553(a) factors to the term of supervised release in a
checklist manner, it is apparent that the court considered the
specific facts and circumstances of Ramirez’s case and found
that an added measure of deterrence was needed. Because the
district court thoroughly explained its reasons for the
imposition of a three-year term of supervised release, we
3
conclude that the district court committed no procedural error. ∗
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
∗
Ramirez also asserts that the district court should have
explained why it imposed the maximum term of supervised release,
as opposed to a lesser amount of time. We conclude that the
same explanation that supported imposing a term of supervised
release in the first instance is similarly adequate to explain
the length of the term of supervised release deemed appropriate
by the district court.
4