Court Opinion

ID: 9395044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:00:50.943024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.965226
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4456      Doc: 29         Filed: 05/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4456

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        OLVIN ANTONIO RAMOS-RAUDALES, a/k/a Joel Raman,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 22-4457

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        OLVIN ANTONIO RAMOS-RAUDALES, a/k/a Olvin Antonio Ramos-Raudales,
        a/k/a Olvin Antonio Ramons-Raudales,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City and Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00028-FL-1;
        5:22-cr-00006-FL-1)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                          Decided: May 15, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4456      Doc: 29         Filed: 05/15/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellate Attorney, 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, Jennifer C. Nucci, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4456       Doc: 29         Filed: 05/15/2023       Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Olvin Antonio Ramos-Raudales pleaded guilty to illegal reentry subsequent to a

        felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and the district court sentenced

        him to 21 months’ imprisonment. At the time Ramos-Raudales committed this offense, he

        was on supervised release. Based on Ramos-Raudales’ admission to violating the terms of

        his supervision, the district court revoked his supervised release and imposed a 10-month

        sentence to run consecutively to the 21-month sentence for the illegal reentry offense.

        Ramos-Raudales appeals from the judgment imposed for his illegal reentry offense and the

        revocation judgment, and he challenges the reasonableness of his 10-month revocation

        sentence. We affirm.

               In fashioning a sentence upon revocation of supervised release and determining

        whether that sentence should run consecutively to another sentence, a sentencing court “has

        broad discretion.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013); see also

        Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236 (2012) (noting that sentencing courts have

        discretion to choose whether the sentences they impose will run consecutively with respect

        to other sentences they impose). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the

        statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d

        202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a

        revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether the sentence

        is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.        Id.    Only if we find the sentence

        procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is “plainly” so.

        United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that a plainly

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4456      Doc: 29         Filed: 05/15/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        unreasonable sentence is one in which the error is clear and obvious). In doing so, we are

        guided by “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of

        original sentences,” but “we strike a more deferential appellate posture than we do when

        reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015)

        (cleaned up).

               “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately

        explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding

        Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United

        States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A

        court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be

        when imposing a post-conviction sentence . . . .” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d

        544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An explanation is adequate if

        it permits us to determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing

        factors with regard to the particular defendant before it and also considered any potentially

        meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v.

        Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). “[A] revocation sentence is

        substantively reasonable if the [district] court sufficiently states a proper basis for its

        conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at

        207 (cleaned up). As with an original sentence, a revocation sentence that is within the

        recommended policy statement range is “presumed reasonable.” Gibbs, 897 F.3d at 204.

               We conclude that Ramos-Raudales’ revocation sentence is procedurally and

        substantively reasonable. The district court imposed a within-policy-statement-range

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4456      Doc: 29         Filed: 05/15/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        sentence, considered the relevant statutory factors, and heard Ramos-Raudales’

        nonfrivolous arguments for mitigation.        Specifically, the district court addressed

        Ramos-Raudales’ contention that he mistakenly believed he was allowed to return to the

        United States after the change in presidential administrations and his contention that he

        only reentered the United States to escape the poor conditions in his country of origin. On

        appeal, Ramos-Raudales argues that the district court gave insufficient weight to these

        contentions, but we conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion. See

        United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing district court’s

        “extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a)

        factors”).

               Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment. Moreover, as Ramos-Raudales

        has failed to challenge his illegal reentry conviction or the sentence imposed for that

        offense, we also affirm that judgment. 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.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     5