UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TULIO RAMON MEJIA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00023-FL-1)

Submitted: January 6, 2023 Decided: June 9, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. 

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Tulio Ramon Mejia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals the 18-

month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation for 

an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Mejia-Martinez

asserts, among other arguments, that the district court failed to adequately consider his 

arguments for a downward variant sentence. Upon review, we hold that the district court 

procedurally erred in imposing this sentence and that this error was not harmless. 

Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s criminal judgment and remand for resentencing.

“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the 

facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for 

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United 

States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

explaining its sentence, the “court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons 

presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those 

arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). 

Generally, an “explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the 

defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but 

as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s 

arguments” in mitigation. United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned 

up). “The court’s explanation should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it 

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
3

decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(cleaned up).

While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the 

context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale, 

searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other 

clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745 

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has 

silently adopted arguments presented by a party.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 

214 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the court fully addresses 

the defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each 

supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. Nonetheless, a district court’s failure 

to give “specific attention to [a defendant’s] nonfrivolous arguments” results in a 

procedurally unreasonable sentence. Lewis, 958 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

In broad terms, Mejia-Martinez requested a downward variance from his revised 

Sentencing Guidelines range of 18-24 months in prison because the presentence report 

overrepresented his criminal history and the relevant facts and circumstances indicated that 

Mejia-Martinez posed a lower-than-usual risk of recidivism. Admittedly, MejiaMartinez’s arguments were not nuanced, lengthy, or complex. However, while the court 

engaged with counsel and Mejia-Martinez concerning some of the relevant facts and 

circumstances, the court did not directly engage with either of these arguments prior to 

imposing its sentence. Importantly, the court’s colloquy with Mejia-Martinez and his 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

attorney did not touch upon the alleged overrepresentation of Mejia-Martinez’s criminal 

history, which both drove the calculation of Mejia-Martinez’s adjusted offense level and, 

of course, his criminal history score. Cf. Blue, 877 F.3d at 521 (noting that reviewing court 

may infer that district court considered defendant’s arguments if “the sentencing court 

engages counsel in a discussion about that argument”). Upon review of the record, we are 

not convinced that what statements the court did offer—even when considered in context 

of the sentencing transcript as a whole—make it “patently obvious” that the court “truly 

considered [Mejia-Martinez’s] nonfrivolous arguments.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the court’s failure to respond to the proffered mitigation arguments constitutes 

procedural error.

To avoid reversal, the Government must demonstrate that this procedural error was 

harmless, which requires “pro[of] that the error did not have a substantial and injurious 

effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In other words, the Government must show that Mejia-Martinez did not receive a longer 

sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous arguments. The

Government makes no such argument, though, contending instead that the district court 

directly addressed Mejia-Martinez’s mitigation arguments. Upon review of the record, we 

cannot agree. Accordingly, the Government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate 

that the district court’s error was harmless. And because we conclude that MejiaMartinez’s arguments in mitigation were not particularly weak in that they were highly 

relevant to the primary issues of concern in this case, to wit: Mejia-Martinez’s likelihood 

of recidivating and the violent nature of his prior criminal conduct, we cannot conclude 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
5

that the sentencing error is harmless. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40 

(4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court’s error harmless because the court explained that it 

considered the sentencing factors, “emphasized the need for specific and general 

deterrence,” and the defendant’s arguments “were very weak”).

Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 

We deny as moot Mejia-Martinez’s motion for accelerated case processing. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 5 of 5