Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05057/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Romero-Candelaria
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS ROMERO-CANDELARIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

(S. Ct. No. 07-5743)

Submitted: April 8, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5057 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
*When Romero-Candelaria was first sentenced, the district

court imposed a variance sentence of twenty-four months to avoid a

disparity between Romero-Candelaria and defendants who participate

in a fast-track program in other districts. Relying on United

States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.

Ct. 542 (2006), we vacated the sentence as unreasonable and

remanded for resentencing. United States v. Romero-Candelaria, 189

F. App’x 149 (4th Cir.) (No. 05-5185), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 610

(2006).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Romero-Candelaria appealed the fifty-seven-month

sentence he received for the offense of illegal reentry in

violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 2006), arguing that

the district court failed to consider adequately a variance based

on various factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.

2007). We affirmed the sentence.*

 The Supreme Court subsequently

vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case for

reconsideration under Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597

(2007). See United States v. Romero-Candelaria, 225 F. App’x 122

(4th Cir. 2007) (No. 06-5057), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 868 (2008).

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an

abuse of discretion standard. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; see also

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The

appellate court must first ensure that the district court committed

no procedural error, such as “failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the Guideline range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

Appeal: 06-5057 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any

deviation from the Guideline range.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

If there are no procedural errors, the appellate court

then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.

“Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the

totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance

from the Guidelines range.” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. While the

court may presume a sentence within the Guidelines range to be

reasonable, it may not presume a sentence outside the range to be

unreasonable. Id. Moreover, it must give due deference to the

district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify

imposing a variance sentence and to its determination regarding the

extent of any variance. Even if the reviewing court would have

reached a different sentencing result on its own, this fact alone

is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id. at

474.

At Romero-Candelaria’s October 2006 resentencing, the

district court followed the necessary procedural steps in

sentencing him, properly calculated the Guidelines range and,

presumably, considered that recommendation in conjunction with the

§ 3553(a) factors. However, the district court did not discuss the

§ 3553(a) factors put forward by Romero-Candelaria as grounds for

a variance, or explain its choice of a sentence. Because the

court did not have the benefit of Gall, we conclude that the proper

Appeal: 06-5057 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

course to follow is to vacate the sentence and remand the case to

give the district court an opportunity to reconsider the sentence

in light of Gall.

Therefore, we vacate the sentence imposed by the district

court and remand for resentencing. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 06-5057 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 4 of 4