Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    United States v. Jesus Zavala, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Jesus Zavala's appeal of his 48-month prison sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence despite not explicitly discussing each 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor. While the explanation did not need to be lengthy, the district court was required to provide an individualized rationale for the particular case to allow for meaningful appellate review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jesus Zavala, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    48 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Jesus Zavala's appeal of his 48-month prison sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence despite not explicitly discussing each 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor. While the explanation did not need to be lengthy, the district court was required to provide an individualized rationale for the particular case to allow for meaningful appellate review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-08-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-4055

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Jesus Zavala's appeal of his 48-month prison sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence despite not explicitly discussing each 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor. While the explanation did not need to be lengthy, the district court was required to provide an individualized rationale for the particular case to allow for meaningful appellate review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    48 views3 pages

    United States v. Jesus Zavala, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Jesus Zavala's appeal of his 48-month prison sentence for illegal reentry by a deported alien. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that the district court sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence despite not explicitly discussing each 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor. While the explanation did not need to be lengthy, the district court was required to provide an individualized rationale for the particular case to allow for meaningful appellate review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-4055

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JESUS ZAVALA, a/k/a Jesus Zavola, a/k/a Jesus Carnegro
    Zavalia, a/k/a Chico Zavala, a/k/a Antonio Esparaza, a/k/a
    Jesus Carnegro Zavala,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00066-MR-DLH-1)

    Submitted:

    August 6, 2015

    Decided:

    August 11, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL


    DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United
    States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jesus Zavala was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment after
    pleading

    guilty

    to

    illegal

    reentry

    of

    deported

    violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012).


    argument

    on

    appeal

    is

    that

    the

    district

    alien,

    in

    Zavalas only

    court

    committed

    significant procedural error in failing to sufficiently explain


    its chosen sentence.

    We affirm.

    We review a defendants sentence for reasonableness using


    an abuse-of-discretion standard.
    U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

    Gall v. United States, 552

    Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed

    for both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

    Id. at 51.

    A district courts failure to adequately explain its sentence is


    a significant procedural error.
    In

    evaluating

    Id.

    sentencing

    courts

    explanation

    of

    selected sentence, we have consistently held that, while the


    district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
    the sentence, it need not robotically tick through every 18
    U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) factor on the record, particularly when
    the

    court

    imposes

    sentence

    within

    the

    properly

    calculated

    Guidelines range.

    United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345

    (4th Cir. 2006).

    At the same time, the district court must

    make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.


    Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.

    While the individualized assessment need

    not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale


    2

    tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit


    meaningful appellate review.

    United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

    325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    have

    applied

    these

    standards

    in

    the

    record

    before

    us,

    We
    and

    conclude that the district courts explanation of the sentence


    was sufficient.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like