Court Opinion

ID: 9896269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:02.079384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:32.227030
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4523      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4523

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        IVAN ERNESTO ARROYO PARRA,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00022-WO-1)

        Submitted: August 3, 2023                                    Decided: November 7, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Chris W. Haaf, CHRIS HAAF LAW PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
        North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4523      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Ivan Ernesto Arroyo Parra pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation

        of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court varied downward from a Sentencing

        Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment, sentenced Arroyo to 186 months’

        imprisonment, and imposed a lifetime term of supervised release. On appeal, Arroyo

        argues that the lifetime supervised release term is unreasonable because the district court

        considered his immigration status in imposing the lifetime term. Arroyo also raises an

        ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to object to the lifetime

        term of supervised release. We affirm.

               We generally review a criminal sentence, including a term of supervised release, for

        reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United

        States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). But, “[w]hen a criminal defendant presents a sentencing

        issue that was not properly preserved in the district court, we review the issue for plain

        error only.” United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015). To

        succeed on plain error review, Arroyo must show that “(1) an error was made; (2) the error

        is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the

        fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris,

        890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review evaluates both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the

        sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In examining procedural reasonableness, we ask whether

        the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4523      Doc: 29          Filed: 11/07/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

        sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors,

        then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of

        the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “A court’s sentencing rationale . . . can support both

        imprisonment and supervised release.” Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d at 425.

               The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, which included a

        minimum five-year term of supervised release, noted that the maximum term of supervised

        release permitted was life, allowed Arroyo to respond after the court indicated that it was

        considering imposing a lifetime term of supervised release, and offered to continue

        sentencing if Arroyo wished. Arroyo opted to proceed. In explaining its chosen sentence,

        the court extensively reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, including Arroyo’s family support

        and lack of prior criminal history, the serious nature of the offense and the danger that

        methamphetamine poses to the community, Arroyo’s role in the distribution, and Arroyo’s

        unlawful presence in the United States.

               Further, the district court did not err by imposing supervised release to deter

        Arroyo’s unauthorized reentry into the United States and to protect the public from

        additional drug trafficking. See id. at 424 (concluding “that the district court appropriately

        determined that imposing a term of supervised release . . . would provide an added measure

        of deterrence and protection for the community” when “the court made repeated references

        to its desire to deter [defendant] from illegally entering the United States for a fourth time

        and continuing his pattern of committing criminal acts”). And, because the present record

        does not conclusively show ineffective assistance, Arroyo’s ineffective assistance of

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4523      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/07/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160,

        163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020) (providing standard).

               We therefore affirm the criminal 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

                                                     4