UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Abel Carlos ANGELES-MORALES, Defendant - Appellant.
Decided: March 05, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Abel Carlos Angeles-Morales pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). The district court sentenced Angeles-Morales to 21 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, Angeles-Morales argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address his arguments in support of a downward variance.
We review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 86, 205 L.Ed.2d 82 (2019). “In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider, among other things, whether the court ․ sufficiently explained the selected sentence.” Id. “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Accordingly, the sentencing court must “address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 206, 205 L.Ed.2d 102 (2019).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court sufficiently considered Angeles-Morales’ arguments for a downward variance and adequately explained its reasons for rejecting them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.