United States v. Tulio Mejia-Martinez

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TULIO RAMON MEJIA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00023-FL-1)

Submitted: January 6, 2023 Decided: June 9, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Tulio Ramon Mejia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals the 18-

month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation for

an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Mejia-Martinez

asserts, among other arguments, that the district court failed to adequately consider his

arguments for a downward variant sentence. Upon review, we hold that the district court

procedurally erred in imposing this sentence and that this error was not harmless.

Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s criminal judgment and remand for resentencing.

“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the

facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United

States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

explaining its sentence, the “court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons

presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those

arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).

Generally, an “explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the

defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but

as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s

arguments” in mitigation. United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned

up). “The court’s explanation should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal *3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 3 of 5

decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020)

(cleaned up).

While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the

context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,

searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other

clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 745

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor may we “assume that the court has

silently adopted arguments presented by a party.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204,

214 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the court fully addresses

the defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address separately each

supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. Nonetheless, a district court’s failure

to give “specific attention to [a defendant’s] nonfrivolous arguments” results in a

procedurally unreasonable sentence. Lewis, 958 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

In broad terms, Mejia-Martinez requested a downward variance from his revised

Sentencing Guidelines range of 18-24 months in prison because the presentence report

overrepresented his criminal history and the relevant facts and circumstances indicated that

Mejia-Martinez posed a lower-than-usual risk of recidivism. Admittedly, Mejia-

Martinez’s arguments were not nuanced, lengthy, or complex. However, while the court

engaged with counsel and Mejia-Martinez concerning some of the relevant facts and

circumstances, the court did not directly engage with either of these arguments prior to

imposing its sentence. Importantly, the court’s colloquy with Mejia-Martinez and his *4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 4 of 5

attorney did not touch upon the alleged overrepresentation of Mejia-Martinez’s criminal

history, which both drove the calculation of Mejia-Martinez’s adjusted offense level and,

of course, his criminal history score. Cf. Blue, 877 F.3d at 521 (noting that reviewing court

may infer that district court considered defendant’s arguments if “the sentencing court

engages counsel in a discussion about that argument”). Upon review of the record, we are

not convinced that what statements the court did offer—even when considered in context

of the sentencing transcript as a whole—make it “patently obvious” that the court “truly

considered [Mejia-Martinez’s] nonfrivolous arguments.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude

that the court’s failure to respond to the proffered mitigation arguments constitutes

procedural error.

To avoid reversal, the Government must demonstrate that this procedural error was

harmless, which requires “pro[of] that the error did not have a substantial and injurious

effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In other words, the Government must show that Mejia-Martinez did not receive a longer

sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous arguments. The

Government makes no such argument, though, contending instead that the district court

directly addressed Mejia-Martinez’s mitigation arguments. Upon review of the record, we

cannot agree. Accordingly, the Government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate

that the district court’s error was harmless. And because we conclude that Mejia-

Martinez’s arguments in mitigation were not particularly weak in that they were highly

relevant to the primary issues of concern in this case, to wit: Mejia-Martinez’s likelihood

of recidivating and the violent nature of his prior criminal conduct, we cannot conclude *5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4460 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 5 of 5

that the sentencing error is harmless. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40

(4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court’s error harmless because the court explained that it

considered the sentencing factors, “emphasized the need for specific and general

deterrence,” and the defendant’s arguments “were very weak”).

Accordingly, we vacate Mejia-Martinez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

We deny as moot Mejia-Martinez’s motion for accelerated case processing. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED