United States v. Melvin Ramirez

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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