UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FLORENTINO CASTANEDA-PELAEZ, a/k/a Florentino CastanadaPalaez, a/k/a Alejandro Mendoza-Rivielo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00390-NCT-1)

Submitted: October 28, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Florentino Castaneda-Pelaez, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon his guilty 

plea to re-entering the United States after previously being 

deported, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006). Castaneda-Pelaez argues that 

his above-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. We disagree and 

affirm his sentence.

 Castaneda-Pelaez was first deported from the United 

States in April 1993, following a state court conviction for 

assault. Castaneda-Pelaez subsequently returned to the United 

States and was convicted of three separate violent offenses 

involving family members. In 1998, Castaneda-Pelaez was 

convicted of illegal re-entry of a deported alien and sentenced 

to 10 months’ imprisonment. He again returned to the United 

States and was again convicted of illegal re-entry and received 

a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment. Castaneda-Pelaez was 

deported for a third time in February 2010. He was arrested in 

North Carolina in September 2011 on unrelated charges, using an 

alias. After he was identified using a fingerprint database, 

Castaneda-Pelaez was again charged with illegal re-entry by a 

previously deported alien. He pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement.

Based on a total offense level of 10 and a criminal 

history category of III, Castaneda-Pelaez’s advisory Guidelines 
3

range was 10 to 16 months’ imprisonment. However, the district 

court granted the Government’s request for an upward variance, 

sentencing Castaneda-Pelaez to 24 months’ imprisonment. 

We review sentences for reasonableness “under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for 

an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.

at 49-51. If the sentence is free of significant procedural 

error, this Court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, 

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

at 51.

“When rendering a sentence, the district court must 

make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted), and must 

“adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful 

appellate review and to promote the perception of fair 

sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. An extensive explanation is 
4

not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied “‘that 

[the district court] 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 States, 551 

U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). When a district court imposes a sentence

that falls outside of the applicable Guidelines range, this 

Court considers “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably 

both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and 

with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing 

range.” United States v. Hernandez–Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 

123 (4th Cir. 2007). In conducting this review, this court 

“must give due deference to the district court’s decision that 

the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 

variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Our review of the record discloses that the district 

court provided an adequate explanation for the variant sentence 

imposed. Considered in the context of the entire sentencing 

hearing, the district court’s statements provide a sufficient 

explanation to satisfy this Court that it had “considered the 

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] 

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

604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Specifically, the court 
5

identified Castaneda-Pelaez’s violent criminal history as well 

as his prior incarcerations for the identical offense, noting 

that “the 36 months he got back in 2007 for re-entering without 

permission didn’t dissuade his return.” We find that the 

district court adequately explained the above-Guidelines 

sentence and committed no other error. Accordingly, we affirm.

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. 

AFFIRMED