United States of America v. Melchor Calderon

PER CURIAM:



In 2014, Melchor Calderon was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; possessing a firearm during a crime of violence,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(B)(i); conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1201(a). Calderon filed

a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, and the district court granted

the motion, vacated Calderon's conviction and sentence for the § 924(c) offense, and

scheduled a resentencing hearing. Calderon now appeals the 242-month sentence of

imprisonment that the court imposed on resentencing. He challenges the procedural and

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, argues that the Government committed

prosecutorial misconduct in advocating for a particular sentence, and contends that vacatur

of the sentence is warranted pursuant to the doctrine of cumulative error.∗

We vacate and

remand for resentencing.

When, as here, the district court reviews a sentence under § 2255 and determines

that it is unlawful, the court shall vacate and set aside the sentence and must order "(1) the

prisoner's release, (2) the grant of a future new trial to the prisoner, (3) or a new sentence,

be it imposed by (a) a resentencing or (b) a corrected sentence.” United States v. Hadden,

475 F.3d 652, 661 (4th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Here, the court conducted

a resentencing hearing, and we review Calderon's resulting sentence for reasonableness

∗ Calderon also briefly argues that the district court's failure to explicitly vacate the

entirety of his original sentence renders his new sentence void. This argument is meritless.

3

"under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d

147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). We first examine the sentence

for procedural error, which includes "failing to properly calculate the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

failing to adequately explain the sentence.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218

(4th Cir. 2019). Only if we find the sentence procedurally reasonable do we consider its

substantive reasonableness. Id.

In pronouncing a sentence, "[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). While we "will not vacate a sentence simply because the district court did

not spell out what the context of its explanation made patently obvious,” United States v.

Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 520-21 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and alterations

omitted), "[t]he 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 decisionmaking authority,” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Further, where "the

district court imposes a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, it must consider the extent

of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the

degree of the variance.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 217 (internal quotation marks omitted).

4

Our review of the record indicates that the district court's explanation was

inadequate to allow for meaningful appellate review. The court imposed a sentence over 70

months above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range, citing only the egregious

nature of Calderon's offense conduct. While Calderon's conduct was abhorrent, the court

failed to explain how that conduct justified the extent of the variance or otherwise offer a

basis for the degree of the deviation. Additionally, the court briefly stated that it had

considered Calderon's mitigating arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, but it did not

discuss whether or how those arguments and factors influenced its sentencing calculus.

See Blue, 877 F.3d at 518 ("[A] perfunctory recitation of the defendant's arguments or the

§ 3553(a) factors without application to the defendant being sentenced does not

demonstrate reasoned decisionmaking or provide an adequate basis for appellate review.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Even viewing the court's explanation in the context

of the sentencing hearing as a whole, we are left to "guess at the district court's rationale”

for imposing the chosen sentence. Provance, 944 F.3d at 218 (internal quotation marks

omitted). Thus, we conclude that the court procedurally erred by failing to adequately

explain the sentence.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Because we

conclude that the district court’s procedural error warrants resentencing, we do not reach Calderon’s remaining arguments regarding the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, the Government’s conduct in advocating for a particular sentence, or the court’s alleged cumulative error. 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

MoreLaw.com
Internet Publishing and Legal Services Marketing


Sponsored by:
LEX Receptionist
Never miss a call with expert answering service for lawyers
Call 833-200-4997 for a $250 Discount Today!


Re: Helping People Find Lawyers Like You On The Internet


Counselor:


MoreLaw.com has published a search engine-optimized report about the above-referenced case.


Turn your litigation successes or failures into Internet marketing for your practice.


Add your name linked to your website, your telephone number, your photograph, and more to the report for only $49, or subscribe to MoreLaw’s Internet marketing program for a year and get a $100 discount on the subscription and cost-effective Internet marketing for your practice.


MoreLaw’ is a small operation that helps people find lawyers like you to represent them and markets your legal services. A small donation will be greatly appreciated.



Kent Morlan
Editor & Publisher
MoreLaw.com, Inc.
601 South Boulder, Suite 600
Tulsa, OK 741119
855-853-4800
Kent@MoreLaw.com