UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ENRIQUE CORONADO,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00073-JAB-1)

Submitted: April 12, 2011 Decided: May 6, 2011

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arza Feldman, FELDMAN AND FELDMAN, Uniondale, New York, for 

Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Randall S. 

Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Enrique Coronado appeals his conviction and sixtyfive-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846 (2006). On appeal, Coronado contends that the district 

court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea because the

factual basis was insufficient and that the district court 

failed to adequately explain his sentence. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm. 

Prior to accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, “the 

[district] court must determine that there is a factual basis 

for the plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). The district court 

“need only be subjectively satisfied that there is a sufficient 

factual basis for a conclusion that the defendant committed all 

of the elements of the offense.” United States v. Mitchell, 104 

F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997). Upon review, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the 

offense conduct as set forth in the factual basis accompanying 

the plea agreement as sufficient to support Coronado’s guilty 

plea. See id. (reviewing acceptance of guilty plea for abuse of 

discretion); see also United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 139 

(4th Cir.) (stating elements of offense), cert. denied, 130 S. 

Ct. 657 (2009).
3

Coronado also contends that his sentence was 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately 

explain that sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must first 

ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant 

procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the 

applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the 

sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 

district court is not required to “robotically tick through 

§ 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v. Johnson, 445 

F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court 

“must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based 

on the particular facts of the case before it. This 

individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but 

it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at 

hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). 

With regard to a sentence within the Guidelines range,

[g]enerally, an adequate explanation . . . is provided 

when the district court indicates that it is 

“rest[ing] [its] decision upon the Commission’s own 

reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper 

sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other 

congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that 

the judge has found that the case before him is 

typical.” 
4

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007).

Because counsel raises the claimed error for the first 

time on appeal, we review for plain error. United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. 

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (detailing plain error 

standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

the district court’s explanation, although brief, was adequate 

under Carter. Thus, the district court did not commit 

reversible procedural error in imposing Coronado’s sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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