United States v. Noel Silva , 671 F. App'x 94 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4265
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOEL BARRERA SILVA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00001-JPB-MJA-1)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linn Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen M. Leddy,
Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney,
Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noel Barrera Silva appeals the 78-month, below-Guidelines
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2012). Silva argues that his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court failed to consider all
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and “did not depart
low enough” from the Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no error,
we affirm.
“In analyzing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we
consider the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard, whereby we must defer to the trial court and can
reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable, even if the
sentence would not have been the choice of the appellate court.”
United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). When we review the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we “take into account
the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Morace,
594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We apply a presumption of reasonableness to a
sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range.
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
2
We reject Silva’s argument that his below-Guidelines
sentence was substantively unreasonable and greater than
necessary to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes. After considering
the district court’s explanation for the chosen sentence and its
discussion of the § 3553(a) factors it deemed relevant, we find
that Silva has failed to rebut the appellate presumption of
reasonableness this court affords his below-Guidelines sentence.
See Susi, 674 F.3d at 289; see also United States v. Diosdado-
Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that the
district court “has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside
of the Guidelines range” and need only “set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its decision (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted)); United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that, while
a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or
discuss every single factor on the record). Accordingly, we
conclude that Silva’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4