Court Opinion

ID: 9839985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 21:00:31.94834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:15.647890
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4132      Doc: 30         Filed: 09/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4132

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JUAN CARLOS SOTO, a/k/a Juan Carlos Soto Vallejos,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cr-00109-RJC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: September 5, 2023                                Decided: September 13, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Elizabeth
        M. Greenough, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4132      Doc: 30         Filed: 09/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Juan Carlos Soto pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to illegal reentry by

        an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Soto, a native and citizen

        of Bolivia, was deported from the United States in 2019 following a North Carolina felony

        conviction. He reentered the United States in 2022 without authorization. At sentencing,

        the district court established an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months’

        imprisonment, denied Soto’s request for a downward variance, and sentenced him to 24

        months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to an undischarged North Carolina sentence

        Soto was currently serving. On appeal, Soto argues that the court failed to adequately

        explain the sentence, rendering it procedurally unreasonable. Finding no reversible error,

        we affirm.

               We review a defendant’s sentence for both procedural and substantive

        reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Lewis,

        18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a sentence to be

        procedurally reasonable, “a district court must conduct an individualized assessment of the

        facts and arguments presented and impose an appropriate sentence, and it must explain the

        sentence chosen.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). In explaining the sentence, the “court must address or consider

        all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why [the

        court] has rejected those arguments” by providing “some individualized assessment

        justifying the sentence imposed and rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence

        based on [18 U.S.C.] § 3553.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2019)

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4132       Doc: 30         Filed: 09/13/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “The district court’s sentencing explanation need not

        be exhaustive or robotically tick through the § 3553(a) factors,” United States v. Friend, 2

        F.4th 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), “and

        [w]hen a district court has fully addressed the defendant’s central thesis during sentencing,

        it need not address separately each supporting data point marshalled for a downward

        variance.” United States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 153–54 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               In denying Soto’s request for a downward variance, the district court explained that

        it had reviewed the information contained in Soto’s presentence report and considered the

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the parties’ arguments, and Soto’s allocution. The

        court recognized Soto’s family members and friends and thanked them for their attendance,

        and specifically addressed Soto’s arguments that he had only been deported from the

        country once, had health issues that were exacerbated by his treatment in the local jail, and

        had not been convicted of any other criminal activity after his illegal reentry into the United

        States. The court noted, however, that Soto was currently serving a state probation

        revocation sentence and that he had a serious criminal history that included discharging

        firearms, assault, and misdemeanor child abuse. The court also observed that Soto had

        provided false testimony in a naturalization proceeding, and it emphasized the seriousness

        of his return to the United States after his deportation. The court explained that it

        considered Soto’s arguments for a downward variance but ultimately believed the low-end

        Guidelines sentence imposed was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to” satisfy the

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, particularly in light of “the need to promote respect

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4132          Doc: 30          Filed: 09/13/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        for the law, deter criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes.”

        (J.A. 38). *

                Soto argues that the district court’s explanation failed to address two nonfrivolous

        arguments that he raised in support of his request for a downward variance: that he was a

        hard worker and entrepreneur who initially came to the United States legally, worked for

        his legal status, and supported others, and that he was remorseful and would not return to

        the country again, which Soto characterizes on appeal as an argument that he presented a

        low risk of recidivism. Although the district court did “not address separately each

        supporting data point marshalled for a downward variance,” Fowler, 58 F.4th at 153–54

        (internal quotation marks omitted), it is clear from the court’s fulsome explanation that it

        “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

        decision-making authority,” Friend, 2 F.4th at 379 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In

        sum, this is not a case where the district court passively heard the parties’ arguments and

        then seemed to ignore them.” Fowler, 58 F.4th at 155 (brackets and internal quotation

        marks omitted). To the contrary, the court clearly conducted an individualized assessment

        of Soto and concluded that a within-Guidelines-range sentence was appropriate.

        Accordingly, we discern no procedural error in the court’s imposition of Soto’s sentence.

                We therefore deny as moot Soto’s motion to expedite, and we affirm the criminal

        judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                *
                    “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

                                                          4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4132         Doc: 30    Filed: 09/13/2023   Pg: 5 of 5

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

        decisional process.

                                                                                  AFFIRMED

                                                  5