US v. Carlos Avila, No. 16-4188 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4188 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS ADRIAN OLEA AVILA, a/k/a Eric Santiago Roman, a/k/a Carlos Olea Avila, Defendant - Appellant. 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: October 19, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and DUNCAN November 21, 2016 and FLOYD, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Adrian Olea Avila pled guilty to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). Avila appealed his within-Guidelines sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment. We remanded for resentencing because the district court did not articulate on the record the reasons for the chosen sentence. United States v. Avila, 633 F. App’x 577 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4900). On remand, the district court imposed the same sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the procedural reasonableness district of court § 3553(a) Avila’s failed (2012) sentence to adequately factors assessment on remand. on and the ground consider conduct an the that 18 the U.S.C. individualized The Government declined to file a brief. Although informed of his right to do so, Avila has not filed a supplemental brief. Our review of Avila’s sentence is for reasonableness, under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 46 (2007). error. Id. calculating Guidelines at the as Gall v. United States, 552 We first review for significant procedural 51. Procedural Sentencing mandatory, error Guidelines failing 2 to includes range, consider improperly treating the § the 3553(a) factors, and sentence. failing Id. to adequately explain the selected Although a sentencing court need not issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion explaining the sentence imposed, the sentencing judge should provide an explanation sufficient “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 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (“Th[e] individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On remand, the district court observed that in Avila’s case there was a “pattern of violations,” that Avila reentered the United States shortly after being deported violating his supervised release, violated the law after his arrival, failed to abide by court orders, and failed to be truthful with the court. The court concluded that a 70-month within-Guidelines sentence was necessary to promote deterrence because Avila had difficulty following instructions not to return. The court also opined that the sentence was necessary to protect the public because Avila violated the laws while he was in this country. The court further added that the 3 sentence reflected Avila’s unwillingness to be truthful with the court and to abide by the court’s orders. Reviewing the district court’s statements at sentencing, it is evident that the court based its chosen sentence on its individualized assessment of Avila’s case and its consideration of the relevant § 3553(a) factors: Avila’s history of repeated illegal reentries, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the need to promote respect for the law, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the need to protect the public, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), and the need to afford adequate deterrence § 3553(a)(2)(B). to criminal conduct, 18 U.S.C. Its explanation was “elaborate enough to allow [this Court] to effectively review the reasonableness of the sentence.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we find no procedural error at sentencing. 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 Avila, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Avila requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 4 was served on Avila. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
