UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ADRIAN OLEA AVILA, a/k/a Eric Santiago Roman, a/k/a
Carlos Olea Avila,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant
United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Adrian Olea Avila pled guilty to illegal reentry by
an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012). Avila appealed his within-Guidelines sentence of 70
months’ imprisonment. We remanded for resentencing because the
district court did not articulate on the record the reasons for
the chosen sentence. United States v. Avila, 633 F. App’x 577
(4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4900). On remand, the district court
imposed the same sentence.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the procedural
reasonableness of Avila’s sentence on the ground that the
district court failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and conduct an individualized
assessment on remand. The Government declined to file a brief.
Although informed of his right to do so, Avila has not filed a
supplemental brief.
Our review of Avila’s sentence is for reasonableness, under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
error. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly
calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a)
2
factors, and failing to adequately explain the selected
sentence. Id. Although a sentencing court need not issue a
comprehensive, detailed opinion explaining the sentence imposed,
the sentencing judge should provide an explanation sufficient
“to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his
own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (“Th[e]
individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy but
it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at
hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
On remand, the district court observed that in Avila’s case
there was a “pattern of violations,” that Avila reentered the
United States shortly after being deported violating his
supervised release, violated the law after his arrival, failed
to abide by court orders, and failed to be truthful with the
court. The court concluded that a 70-month within-Guidelines
sentence was necessary to promote deterrence because Avila had
difficulty following instructions not to return. The court also
opined that the sentence was necessary to protect the public
because Avila violated the laws while he was in this country.
The court further added that the sentence reflected Avila’s
3
unwillingness to be truthful with the court and to abide by the
court’s orders.
Reviewing the district court’s statements at sentencing, it
is evident that the court based its chosen sentence on its
individualized assessment of Avila’s case and its consideration
of the relevant § 3553(a) factors: Avila’s history of repeated
illegal reentries, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the need to promote
respect for the law, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the need to
protect the public, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), and the need to
afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B). Its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow
[this Court] to effectively review the reasonableness of the
sentence.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we find no procedural error at sentencing.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Avila, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Avila requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
4
was served on Avila. 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
5