Court Opinion

ID: 9911427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:36.699747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:56.342933
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4357      Doc: 34         Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4357

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MELCHOR CALDERON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-2)

        Submitted: November 29, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sandra Barrett, Hendersonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F.
        Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4357       Doc: 34          Filed: 12/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               In 2014, Melchor Calderon was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act

        robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; possessing a firearm during a crime of violence,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(B)(i); conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation

        of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1201(a). Calderon filed

        a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, and the district court granted

        the motion, vacated Calderon’s conviction and sentence for the § 924(c) offense, and

        scheduled a resentencing hearing. Calderon now appeals the 242-month sentence of

        imprisonment that the court imposed on resentencing. He challenges the procedural and

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence, argues that the Government committed

        prosecutorial misconduct in advocating for a particular sentence, and contends that vacatur

        of the sentence is warranted pursuant to the doctrine of cumulative error. ∗ We vacate and

        remand for resentencing.

               When, as here, the district court reviews a sentence under § 2255 and determines

        that it is unlawful, the court shall vacate and set aside the sentence and must order “(1) the

        prisoner’s release, (2) the grant of a future new trial to the prisoner, (3) or a new sentence,

        be it imposed by (a) a resentencing or (b) a corrected sentence.” United States v. Hadden,

        475 F.3d 652, 661 (4th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Here, the court conducted

        a resentencing hearing, and we review Calderon’s resulting sentence for reasonableness

               ∗
                 Calderon also briefly argues that the district court’s failure to explicitly vacate the
        entirety of his original sentence renders his new sentence void. This argument is meritless.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4357      Doc: 34          Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d

        147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). We first examine the sentence

        for procedural error, which includes “failing to properly calculate the applicable

        Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

        failing to adequately explain the sentence.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218

        (4th Cir. 2019). Only if we find the sentence procedurally reasonable do we consider its

        substantive reasonableness. Id.

               In pronouncing a sentence, “[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). While we “will not vacate a sentence simply because the district court did

        not spell out what the context of its explanation made patently obvious,” United States v.

        Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 520-21 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and alterations

        omitted), “[t]he 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 decisionmaking authority,” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782

        (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Further, where “the

        district court imposes a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, it must consider the extent

        of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the

        degree of the variance.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 217 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4357      Doc: 34          Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

               Our review of the record indicates that the district court’s explanation was

        inadequate to allow for meaningful appellate review. The court imposed a sentence over 70

        months above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range, citing only the egregious

        nature of Calderon’s offense conduct. While Calderon’s conduct was abhorrent, the court

        failed to explain how that conduct justified the extent of the variance or otherwise offer a

        basis for the degree of the deviation. Additionally, the court briefly stated that it had

        considered Calderon’s mitigating arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, but it did not

        discuss whether or how those arguments and factors influenced its sentencing calculus.

        See Blue, 877 F.3d at 518 (“[A] perfunctory recitation of the defendant’s arguments or the

        § 3553(a) factors without application to the defendant being sentenced does not

        demonstrate reasoned decisionmaking or provide an adequate basis for appellate review.”

        (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even viewing the court’s explanation in the context

        of the sentencing hearing as a whole, we are left to “guess at the district court’s rationale”

        for imposing the chosen sentence. Provance, 944 F.3d at 218 (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Thus, we conclude that the court procedurally erred by failing to adequately

        explain the sentence.

               Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Because we

        conclude that the district court’s procedural error warrants resentencing, we do not reach

        Calderon’s remaining arguments regarding the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, the

        Government’s conduct in advocating for a particular sentence, or the court’s alleged

        cumulative error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4357         Doc: 34     Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                   VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                    5