Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04393/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04393-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abel Carlos Angeles-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABEL CARLOS ANGELES-MORALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00255-FL-1)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 5, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4393 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/05/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Abel Carlos Angeles-Morales pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States 

after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). The 

district court sentenced Angeles-Morales to 21 months of imprisonment and he now 

appeals. On appeal, Angeles-Morales argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court failed to address his arguments in support of a downward 

variance. 

We review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.) (internal 

quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 86 (2019). “In determining procedural 

reasonableness, we consider, among other things, whether the court . . . sufficiently 

explained the selected sentence.” Id. “The sentencing judge should set forth enough 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, 356 (2007). Accordingly, the sentencing court must “address or consider all nonfrivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why he has 

rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

140 S. Ct. 206 (2019). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court sufficiently 

considered Angeles-Morales’ arguments for a downward variance and adequately 

explained its reasons for rejecting them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4393 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/05/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4393 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/05/2020 Pg: 3 of 3