UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4306

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUSTAVO ALBERTO HENRIQUEZ-RIVAS, a/k/a Gustavo Alberto 

Rivas-Henriquez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:13-cr-00483-GLR-1)

Submitted: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson, 

Appellate Attorney, Perie Reiko Koyama, Law Clerk, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Zachary A. Myers, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gustavo Alberto Henriquez-Rivas appeals his fourteenmonth sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unauthorized 

reentry of a removed alien after a felony conviction, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). On appeal, he

argues that the district court imposed a procedurally 

unreasonable sentence by failing to address his argument that 

the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a 

sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. Finding no error, we 

affirm.1

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review 

requires us to ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 

155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “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 

 1 Although Henriquez-Rivas was released from custody on 

September 26, 2014, the appeal is not moot because it is 

conceivable that “a favorable appellate decision might prompt 

the district court to reduce [his] three-year term of supervised 

release.” See United States v. Kleiner, 765 F.3d 155, 156 n.1 

(2d Cir. 2014).
3

on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation 

from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural 

sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district 

court, we review for abuse of discretion” and will reverse 

unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.” United 

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For 

instance, if “an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the 

district court of its responsibility to render an individualized 

explanation” by drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence 

different than the one ultimately imposed,” the party 

sufficiently “preserves its claim.” Id. at 578. However, this 

court reviews unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors for 

plain error. Id. at 576-77. Because Henriquez-Rivas repeats on 

appeal arguments he raised in the district court, we review for 

abuse of discretion. 

Upon review, we discern no procedural error in 

Henriquez-Rivas’ fourteen-month sentence. A district court need 

not provide a “comprehensive, detailed opinion” as long as it 

has satisfied the appellate court that it “has considered the 

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its 

own legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Engle, 

592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United 
4

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and 

alterations omitted). 

Here, the district court allowed the parties to file 

multiple memoranda and/or letters in support of their sentencing 

positions and further considered their arguments at sentencing. 

Notably, Henriquez-Rivas thoroughly presented his argument that 

the time he had already spent in immigration custody supported a 

sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, both in writing and 

before the district court at sentencing. The district court 

listened to the parties’ positions, acknowledged the “thorough 

sentencing memoranda,” and stated that the court “kn[e]w exactly 

what the arguments” were in the case. (J.A. 47).

The district court proceeded to explicitly invoke the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, rooting its chosen sentence in the 

seriousness of Henriquez-Rivas’ offense, the need for deterrence 

in light of his repeated illegal reentries, and the need to 

protect the public from his violent behavior. Although the 

district court “might have said more” to explain its rejection 

of the argument raised by Henriquez-Rivas, see Rita, 551 U.S. at 

359, its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow [us] to 

effectively review the reasonableness of the sentence.” United 
5

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).2

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2 Henriquez-Rivas does not challenge the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence on appeal.