UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUCAS CASTE-LOPEZ, a/k/a Hector Villasenor-Rodriguez, a/k/a 

Doroteo Malacara-Arango,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00115-F-1)

Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit 

Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. 

Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lucas Caste-Lopez appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 

eighteen months’ imprisonment. Caste-Lopez argues that his 

sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court 

failed to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)

factors and make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

before it. We agree, and vacate the district court’s order and 

remand for further proceedings.

Because Caste-Lopez has not preserved this issue, it 

is subject to plain error review. Under the plain error 

standard, the defendant must show that an error was made, is 

plain, and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United 

States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after 

revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed 

statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this 

determination, we first consider whether the sentence is 

unreasonable. Id. at 438. “This initial inquiry takes a more 

‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the 

exercise of discretion’ than reasonableness review for 

[G]uidelines sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 

652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439).
3

The district court’s discretion is not unlimited. 

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). 

The district court commits procedural error by failing to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence and to provide an 

individualized assessment based on the facts. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A court need not be as 

detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it 

must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still

‘must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.’” 

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (quoting Moulden, 478 F.3d at 657). 

The district court procedurally erred when it failed 

to provide an individualized assessment of the relevant facts in 

imposing sentence. Other than stating that it “considered the 

policies and statements in revocation contained in Chapter 7 of 

the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” the district court provided no

explanation for its eighteen-month sentence. Moreover, the 

court made no mention of the applicable § 3553(a) factors and 

did not discuss Caste-Lopez’s personal history, his argument in 

favor of a concurrent sentence, or the Government’s argument in 

favor of a consecutive sentence. 

Upon finding this procedural error, our next step 

under Crudup is to determine whether the sentence is “plainly 

unreasonable,” under the definition of “plain” used in 

plain-error analysis. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. “For a sentence 
4

to be plainly unreasonable . . . it must run afoul of clearly 

settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 548.

“[T]he district court’s obligation to provide some 

basis for appellate review when imposing a revocation sentence, 

however minimal that basis may be, has been settled in this 

Circuit since at least Moulden.” Id. Accordingly, the district 

court failed to provide any reasons for its sentence in 

disregard of clear precedent and was thus plainly unreasonable. 

This error, when considered with the district court’s 

incorrect calculation of the Guidelines range,*

 * U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a), p.s., 

provides a sentencing range of eight to fourteen months for a 

Grade B violation and a category III criminal history, rather 

than twelve to eighteen months, as stated by the district court.

affected 

Caste-Lopez’s substantial rights. Under the plain error 

standard, Caste-Lopez has the burden of showing that the 

procedural errors had a prejudicial effect on the sentence 

imposed. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1433 

n.4 (2009). Considering that the district court sentenced 

Caste-Lopez at the highest end of what it thought to be the

Guidelines range, we conclude a non-speculative basis exists to 

infer prejudice that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. 
5

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (discussing fourth prong of 

plain error test).

We therefore vacate Caste-Lopez’s sentence and remand 

for further proceedings. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED