Court Opinion

ID: 9401131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:28.942955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.809861
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460      Doc: 21         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4460

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TULIO RAMON MEJIA-MARTINEZ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00023-FL-1)

        Submitted: January 6, 2023                                            Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, 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, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4460       Doc: 21         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Tulio Ramon Mejia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals the 18-

        month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation for

        an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Mejia-Martinez

        asserts, among other arguments, that the district court failed to adequately consider his

        arguments for a downward variant sentence. Upon review, we hold that the district court

        procedurally erred in imposing this sentence and that this error was not harmless.

        Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s criminal judgment and remand for resentencing.

               “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). In

        explaining its sentence, the “court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons

        presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those

        arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).

        Generally, an “explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the

        defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but

        as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s

        arguments” in mitigation. United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned

        up). “The 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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460      Doc: 21         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (cleaned up).

               While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the

        context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,

        searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other

        clues that might explain a sentence.”       United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745

        (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has

        silently adopted arguments presented by a party.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204,

        214 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the court fully addresses

        the defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each

        supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. Nonetheless, a district court’s failure

        to give “specific attention to [a defendant’s] nonfrivolous arguments” results in a

        procedurally unreasonable sentence. Lewis, 958 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               In broad terms, Mejia-Martinez requested a downward variance from his revised

        Sentencing Guidelines range of 18-24 months in prison because the presentence report

        overrepresented his criminal history and the relevant facts and circumstances indicated that

        Mejia-Martinez posed a lower-than-usual risk of recidivism.            Admittedly, Mejia-

        Martinez’s arguments were not nuanced, lengthy, or complex. However, while the court

        engaged with counsel and Mejia-Martinez concerning some of the relevant facts and

        circumstances, the court did not directly engage with either of these arguments prior to

        imposing its sentence. Importantly, the court’s colloquy with Mejia-Martinez and his

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460       Doc: 21        Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        attorney did not touch upon the alleged overrepresentation of Mejia-Martinez’s criminal

        history, which both drove the calculation of Mejia-Martinez’s adjusted offense level and,

        of course, his criminal history score. Cf. Blue, 877 F.3d at 521 (noting that reviewing court

        may infer that district court considered defendant’s arguments if “the sentencing court

        engages counsel in a discussion about that argument”). Upon review of the record, we are

        not convinced that what statements the court did offer—even when considered in context

        of the sentencing transcript as a whole—make it “patently obvious” that the court “truly

        considered [Mejia-Martinez’s] nonfrivolous arguments.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude

        that the court’s failure to respond to the proffered mitigation arguments constitutes

        procedural error.

               To avoid reversal, the Government must demonstrate that this procedural error was

        harmless, which requires “pro[of] that the error did not have a substantial and injurious

        effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted).

        In other words, the Government must show that Mejia-Martinez did not receive a longer

        sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous arguments. The

        Government makes no such argument, though, contending instead that the district court

        directly addressed Mejia-Martinez’s mitigation arguments. Upon review of the record, we

        cannot agree. Accordingly, the Government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate

        that the district court’s error was harmless.     And because we conclude that Mejia-

        Martinez’s arguments in mitigation were not particularly weak in that they were highly

        relevant to the primary issues of concern in this case, to wit: Mejia-Martinez’s likelihood

        of recidivating and the violent nature of his prior criminal conduct, we cannot conclude

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460      Doc: 21         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        that the sentencing error is harmless. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40

        (4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court’s error harmless because the court explained that it

        considered the sentencing factors, “emphasized the need for specific and general

        deterrence,” and the defendant’s arguments “were very weak”).

               Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

        We deny as moot Mejia-Martinez’s motion for accelerated case processing. 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.

                                                                    VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                     5