Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 12-4302
No. 12-4443
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00253-TDS-10; 1:11-cr-00375-TDS-1;
1:11-CR-00253-TDS-8)
Submitted:
Decided:
April 9, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Hoy and Yonel Reyes Vasallo pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in
violation
guilty
of
to
21
U.S.C.
traveling
distribution
of
in
846
interstate
marijuana,
1952(a)(3) (2006).
(2006).
in
Vasallo
commerce
violation
also
to
of
pleaded
facilitate
18
U.S.C.
applying
discretion
standard.
51
see
States,
an
552
abuse
U.S.
of
38,
(2007);
Gall
also
United
the
sentence
for
significant
v.
United
States
v.
In so doing, we
procedural
error,
consider
selecting
the
[18
sentence
U.S.C.]
based
on
3553(a)
clearly
[(2006)]
erroneous
factors,
facts,
or
Gall, 552
calculated
advisory
Guidelines
3
range
is
reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.
United
States
v.
Carter,
564
F.3d
325,
328
(4th
Cir.
2009)
next
conditions
his
argues
of
that
the
supervised
probation
officer
court
release,
with
erred
in
including
requested
imposing
that
he
financial
was error, that was plain, and that affected his substantial
rights. Id. at 731.
error
occurred,
correct
the
fairness,
this
error
court
unless
integrity
proceedings.
will
the
or
not
error
public
exercise
discretion
seriously
affect[s]
reputation
of
to
the
judicial
omitted).
A sentencing court may impose any condition that is
reasonably
related
to
the
relevant
statutory
sentencing
the
defendant
with
training
or
treatment.
United
States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 407 (4th Cir. 2012); see 18
U.S.C. 3553(a).
adequately
imposing
it.
omitted).
explain
Id.
its
decision
(internal
and
quotation
its
marks
reasons
and
for
citations
erred
in
argues
on
applying
appeal
a
that
two-level
the
district
enhancement
court
under
the
truck
driving
license
to
commit
the
offense.
As
if
in
the
defendant
used
special
skill
manner
that
court
levels.
The
shall
central
increase
purpose
the
of
offense
3B1.3
level
is
to
by
two
penalize
Brack,
districts
with
fast-track
sentencing
programs
for
drug
In United States v.
Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 244 (4th Cir. 2006), however, we found
that such disparities are not unwarranted disparities.
U.S.C.
3553(a)(6).
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
See 18
Vasallos
Vasallo
unreasonable.
argues
The
6
that
his
district
sentence
court
is
sentenced
presumption
of
reasonableness
to
that
sentence.
We
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED