Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Carlos Avila, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Carlos Avila, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4900
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00136-NCT-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Adrian Olea Avila appeals the 70-month sentence the
district court imposed following his guilty plea to the charge
of
illegal
reentry
of
an
aggravated
felon,
in
violation
of
uphold
determine
vacate
its
the
the
sentence
substantive
judgment
of
as
procedurally
reasonableness.
the
district
court
reasonable
Accordingly,
and
remand
nor
we
for
resentencing.
I.
A.
Avila, a native of Mexico, entered the United States on
June
15,
2001.
In
2003
and
2004,
he
was
of
two
convicted
The second, in
In 2009,
A federal grand
jury
reentry
subsequently
aggravated
(b)(2).
felon,
indicted
in
Avila
violation
for
of
illegal
U.S.C.
1326
by
(a)
an
and
calculated
U.S.S.G.
2L1.2(a)
base-offense
(2013),
with
level
16-level
of
under
increase
the
because
of
responsibility,
the
probation
officer
found
PSR.
range
to
requested
downward
variance,
be
70
to
within-Guidelines
87
months.
arguing
sentence.
that,
The
Avila
by
both
government
requested
imposing
a
the
of
V,
the
PSR
double-counted
his
prior
felony
conviction.
To Avilas argument for a downward variance, the Government
responded that the three criminal history points were added for
the
prior
because
conviction
Avila
once
and
the
again
16-level
reentered
enhancement
the
country
was
given
illegally.
district
court
agreed
with
the
Government
on
the
sentence
nor
explicitly
mentioned
the
II.
In
his
appeal,
Avila
contends
that
his
sentence
is
United States v.
Carter,
(quoting
564
F.3d
325,
328
(4th
Cir.
approach.
We
first
must
2009)
v.
ensure
that
the
Gall
district
Gall, 552
reasonable,
reasonableness
we
of
then
the
proceed
to
sentence
consider
imposed.
the
substantive
Carter,
564
F.3d
F.3d
375,
omitted).
380
In
(4th
Cir.
particular,
2006)
18
(citation
U.S.C.
and
3553(c)
alteration
requires
if
it
district
must
place
court
on
the
record
within-Guidelines
an
individualized
(footnote omitted).
the
particular
case
at
hand
and
adequate
to
permit
Carter's
sentence
with
an
individualized
rationale.
at
explain
329.
Thus,
how
we
those
found
purposes
Carters
applied
sentence
to
Carter.
unreasonable
sentence,
regardless
of
the
offense,
the
defendant's
Id.
(emphasis omitted).
Here, the totality of the district court's statement to
Avila with respect to the sentence was as follows:
I am in agreement with Ms. Hairstons perspective with
regard to how the counted criminal history points, as
well as the reason for the aggravated felony existing,
and will not vary downward, Mr. McCoppin, for that
reason.
I am in agreement as well with the
recommendation of the guidelines for a sentence at the
low end of that advisory range, which is 70 months.
Everyone does have a right to change their life. What
happens here regardless of what it is, has nothing to
do with the persons decision and right to change
whatever it is they do.
You had the opportunity to
change any decision you would make after you were
convicted in Federal District Court in Arizona about
returning to the United States.
J.A. 60-61.
its concern regarding the offense and its agreement with the
recommended Guidelines sentence.
an
appellate
court
to
effectively
review
the
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
the
in
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the
district court and remand for resentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED