Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. APOLINAR SANTIAGO-ALBARRAN, a/k/a Apolinar Santiago- Lavarran, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-TDS-1) Submitted: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. APOLINAR SANTIAGO-ALBARRAN, a/k/a Apolinar Santiago- Lavarran, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-TDS-1) Submitted: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
APOLINAR SANTIAGO-ALBARRAN, a/k/a Apolinar Santiago-
Lavarran,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-TDS-1)
Submitted: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Apolinar Santiago-Albarran appeals his sentence of 84
months in prison after he pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute 51.6 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Santiago-Albarran’s attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting, in counsel’s opinion, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
the district court imposed an unreasonable term of imprisonment.
Santiago-Albarran was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On
2
appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In sentencing, the district court should first
calculate the Guidelines range and give the parties an
opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem
appropriate. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). The district court should then consider the
relevant § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the
sentence requested by either party.
Id. When rendering a
sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case.
Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330.
In explaining the chosen sentence, 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,”
but when the judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines,
“doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or
discuss every factor on the record, particularly when it imposes
3
a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
Santiago-Albarran’s sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing him to 84 months in prison. The district court
properly determined his Guidelines range was 21 to 27 months for
the drug charge, plus a consecutive 60-month term on the firearm
charge. After hearing from the parties, the district court
considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, reasonably determined a
sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range on the drug
charge was appropriate, and adequately explained its decision.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
