Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Louis Amaro, 4th Cir. (2013)
United States v. Louis Amaro, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 13-4244
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00003-RJC-14)
Submitted:
Decided:
October 3, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Louis
Javier
Amaro
pled
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
supervised
release,
and
$200
special
assessment.
On
issues
court
recommendations
for
appeal,
improperly
and
but
rejected
attributed
five
questioning
the
whether
plea
kilograms
of
the
agreements
cocaine
to
his
right
to
do
so.
We
affirm
Amaros
convictions
and
sentence.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district
court
did
not
commit
any
significant
procedural
to
adequately
explain
the
to
robotically
tick
2
sentence.
Gall
v.
United
3553(a)s
every
subsection.
Cir. 2006).
not
be
elaborate
or
lengthy,
but
it
must
provide
permit
meaningful
appellate
review.
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50 (internal citation and footnote omitted)).
[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court, we
review
for
abuse
of
discretion
and
will
reverse
United States
In assessing the
courts
findings
of
fact
for
clear
error.
United
Only if we
Carter, 564
F.3d at 328.
At sentencing Amaro objected to the district courts
consideration of drug quantities in excess of the parties joint
recommendation in the plea agreement.
binding
on
the
11(c)(1)(B).
district
court.
See
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
United States v.
we
find
that
individualized
the
district
explanation
to
court
support
provided
the
an
sentence.
v.
Susi,
belowGuidelines
674
F.3d
278,
sentence
is
289
(4th
entitled
Cir.
to
See United
2012)
(holding
presumption
of
substantive reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
This court
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
move
in
representation.
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED