Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Santos Rios-Santos' sentence of 28 months imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Rios-Santos argued that the district court failed to adequately explain why it rejected his request for a below-guidelines sentence and that his prior conviction should have been presented to a jury. The appellate court found that the district court conducted a sufficient individualized analysis under Gall and Carter. It also noted that Rios-Santos' argument regarding his prior conviction being presented to a jury was foreclosed by previous precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    66 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Santos Rios-Santos' sentence of 28 months imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Rios-Santos argued that the district court failed to adequately explain why it rejected his request for a below-guidelines sentence and that his prior conviction should have been presented to a jury. The appellate court found that the district court conducted a sufficient individualized analysis under Gall and Carter. It also noted that Rios-Santos' argument regarding his prior conviction being presented to a jury was foreclosed by previous precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4299

    Original Title

    United States v. Santos Rios-Santos, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Santos Rios-Santos' sentence of 28 months imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Rios-Santos argued that the district court failed to adequately explain why it rejected his request for a below-guidelines sentence and that his prior conviction should have been presented to a jury. The appellate court found that the district court conducted a sufficient individualized analysis under Gall and Carter. It also noted that Rios-Santos' argument regarding his prior conviction being presented to a jury was foreclosed by previous precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    66 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Santos Rios-Santos' sentence of 28 months imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Rios-Santos argued that the district court failed to adequately explain why it rejected his request for a below-guidelines sentence and that his prior conviction should have been presented to a jury. The appellate court found that the district court conducted a sufficient individualized analysis under Gall and Carter. It also noted that Rios-Santos' argument regarding his prior conviction being presented to a jury was foreclosed by previous precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4299

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SANTOS RIOS-SANTOS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:13-cr-00274-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    January 29, 2015

    Decided:

    February 12, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Shailika S. Kotiya, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Santos Rios-Santos pled guilty to illegal reentry into
    the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated
    felony, 8 U.S.C. 1326(b) (2012).

    At Rios-Santos sentencing

    hearing, his attorney requested a sentence below the advisory


    Guidelines range of 24-30 months imprisonment.

    The district

    court rejected Rios-Santos request and sentenced him to a 28month term. He appeals, arguing that the district court failed
    to

    adequately

    provide

    an

    individualized

    reason

    as

    to

    rejected his request for a below-Guidelines sentence.

    why

    it

    He also

    argues that the fact of his prior felony conviction should have
    been presented to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    We affirm.
    We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
    abuse of discretion standard.
    38, 46 (2007).
    both

    the

    sentence.

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

    This review requires appellate consideration of

    procedural
    Id.

    and

    substantive

    reasonableness

    of

    After determining whether the district court

    properly calculated the defendants advisory Guidelines range,


    this

    court

    must

    then

    consider

    whether

    the

    district

    court

    considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed any


    arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
    the selected sentence.

    Gall, 552 U.S. at 4950; see Rita v.

    United States, 551 U.S. 338, 34647 (2007); United States v.


    2

    Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).


    the

    substantive

    reasonableness

    of

    the

    Finally, we review

    sentence,

    taking

    into

    account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent


    of any variance from the Guidelines range.

    United States v.

    Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted).
    of

    correctness

    to

    Guidelines range.
    Here,

    This court applies a presumption

    sentence

    within

    the

    properly-calculated

    Rita, 551 U.S. at 34647.

    the

    district

    court

    correctly

    calculated

    Rios-

    Santos Guidelines range and, after hearing his arguments for a


    below-Guidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines sentence
    of 28 months.
    sufficient

    to

    individualized

    We find that the district courts explanation was


    show

    that

    sentencing

    the

    court

    analysis

    conducted

    required

    the

    sort

    under

    Gall

    of
    and

    Carter.
    Rios-Santos also argues that the fact of his prior
    conviction
    beyond

    should

    have

    reasonable

    been

    presented

    doubt.

    He

    to

    concedes,

    jury

    and

    however,

    proven

    that

    this

    argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,


    523 U.S. 224, 228-35, 239-47 (1998) (holding statute permitting
    increased

    sentence

    based

    on

    prior

    conviction

    is

    penalty

    provision, not element of offense).


    Accordingly,
    dispense

    with

    oral

    we

    affirm

    argument

    Rios-Santos

    because
    3

    the

    sentence.

    facts

    and

    We
    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like