UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO PAREDES-GUTIERREZ, a/k/a Roberto Ruiz, a/k/a Roberto
Perez, a/k/a Roberto Paredes-Gutierres,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00104-REP-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Alison L. Anderson, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Paredes-Gutierrez pled guilty to one count of
illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). His
twenty-one-month sentence was at the top of his properly
calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, the
Defendant argues that the district court did not adequately
explain its reasons for imposing the sentence and denying his
request for a downward variance sentence. He also argues for
the first time on appeal that the court’s references to leniency
at sentencing were related to its allegedly mistaken belief that
he could have been charged with illegal reentry after conviction
for an aggravated felony, which carries a twenty-year statutory
maximum. We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 45-46 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 578–79 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting abuse of discretion
standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves
a claim of sentencing error). We begin by reviewing the
sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
2
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
An individualized explanation must accompany every
sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. The court’s explanation need
not be exhaustive, although it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy
the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). When imposing a
sentence within the Guidelines range, however, the explanation
need not be elaborate or lengthy because Guidelines “sentences
themselves are in many ways tailored to the individual and
reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,
271 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
We hold that the district court committed neither
procedural error alleged by the Defendant. The district court
correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, and it is
apparent from the court’s discussion that it considered both
parties’ arguments, the motion for a downward variance based on
cultural assimilation, and the § 3553(a) factors and that it had
a reasoned basis for its decision. The court’s references to
leniency at sentencing do not constitute plain error. See Lynn,
3
592 F.3d at 577 (stating plain error standard applies to
unpreserved claims of procedural sentencing error).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4