UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PABLO BUSTOS-CASTANEDA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00333-TDS-1)

Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States 

Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pablo Bustos-Castaneda pled guilty to illegal reentry of an 

aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) 

(2012). The district court sentenced Bustos-Castaneda to 68 

months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals, challenging his 

sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th 

Cir. 2015). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for any 

procedural error, including “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)]

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, 

or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including 

an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” 

Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if 

the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the Court applies a 

presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for 

within Guidelines sentence).

Bustos-Castaneda asserts that the district court did not 

properly consider factors he raised in support of his request 
3

for a below Guidelines sentence of 48 months. He also contends 

that his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the 

sentencing objectives of § 3553(a). Upon our review, we find 

that the within Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. 

The district court expressly considered the factors raised 

by Bustos-Castaneda in favor of a below Guidelines sentence, but 

declined to grant his request. The court considered his history 

and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, his criminal history and punishments for prior 

offenses, employment history, health issues, extended family in 

the United states, and reason for reentering the United States. 

The court emphasized the need to protect the public and deter 

Bustos-Castaneda, as well as the fact that a prior 57-month 

sentence did not inspire him to respect the law. The within 

Guidelines sentence imposed following this individualized 

assessment is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 

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