Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Douglas Ayala's conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported aggravated felon. The court found that the district court did not plainly err by failing to order withdrawal of Ayala's guilty plea, as Ayala was properly informed of the maximum penalty and that no specific sentence was guaranteed. The court also found that the district court properly characterized Ayala's prior Maryland conviction for second degree assault as a crime of violence warranting a sentencing enhancement. Finally, the court determined that Ayala's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Douglas Ayala's conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported aggravated felon. The court found that the district court did not plainly err by failing to order withdrawal of Ayala's guilty plea, as Ayala was properly informed of the maximum penalty and that no specific sentence was guaranteed. The court also found that the district court properly characterized Ayala's prior Maryland conviction for second degree assault as a crime of violence warranting a sentencing enhancement. Finally, the court determined that Ayala's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-4808

    Original Title

    United States v. Douglas Ayala, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Douglas Ayala's conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported aggravated felon. The court found that the district court did not plainly err by failing to order withdrawal of Ayala's guilty plea, as Ayala was properly informed of the maximum penalty and that no specific sentence was guaranteed. The court also found that the district court properly characterized Ayala's prior Maryland conviction for second degree assault as a crime of violence warranting a sentencing enhancement. Finally, the court determined that Ayala's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    39 views5 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Douglas Ayala's conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported aggravated felon. The court found that the district court did not plainly err by failing to order withdrawal of Ayala's guilty plea, as Ayala was properly informed of the maximum penalty and that no specific sentence was guaranteed. The court also found that the district court properly characterized Ayala's prior Maryland conviction for second degree assault as a crime of violence warranting a sentencing enhancement. Finally, the court determined that Ayala's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-4808

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DOUGLAS RENE AYALA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Alexander Williams, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:10-cr-00250-AW-1)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2012

    Decided:

    April 2, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ron Earnest, LAW OFFICE OF RON EARNEST, Riverdale, Maryland, for


    Appellant.
    Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, William
    D.
    Moomau,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Greenbelt,
    Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Rene Ayala pled guilty to illegal reentry by a
    previously deported aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C.
    1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).

    Ayala appeals his conviction and the

    fifty-one month sentence imposed by the district court on three


    grounds: (1) that the district court plainly erred in failing
    sua sponte to order withdrawal of Ayalas guilty plea; (2) that
    the district court plainly erred in enhancing Ayalas offense
    level based on a finding that his prior Maryland conviction for
    second

    degree

    Sentencing

    assault

    Guidelines

    was

    crime

    Manual

    of

    violence

    (USSG)

    under

    U.S.

    2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)

    (2010); and (3) that the sentence is substantively unreasonable


    because

    the

    district

    court

    circumstances of the offense.

    did

    not

    adequately

    consider

    the

    We affirm.

    Because the first two claims were not preserved in the


    district court, we review them for plain error.

    To establish

    plain error, [an appellant] must show that an error occurred,


    that

    the

    error

    was

    substantial rights.
    249 (4th Cir. 2007).

    plain,

    and

    that

    the

    error

    affected

    his

    United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247,


    Neither claim meets this high standard.

    As to the first claim, the district court properly


    informed Ayala at the guilty plea proceeding that he faced up to
    twenty

    years

    imprisonment

    for

    his

    offense.

    The

    court

    then

    reviewed the offense level and criminal history category Ayala


    2

    would

    likely

    earn,

    but

    emphasized

    that

    predictions as to what the sentence will be.

    there

    were

    no

    Ayala assured the

    court that no one had forecast that he would receive a specific


    sentence.

    At sentencing, Ayalas criminal history category was

    one

    higher

    level

    than

    that

    discussed

    at

    the

    plea

    colloquy.

    Although Ayala did not move the district court to withdraw his
    guilty plea, he argues on appeal that the district court should
    sua

    sponte

    have

    ordered

    such

    withdrawal

    in

    light

    of

    this

    disparity.
    We reject this argument.

    The district court informed

    Ayala during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing of the twenty-year


    maximum penalty, that he could be sentenced up to that amount,
    and that no one could predict the length of his sentence.

    The

    district court also ensured that no one had made any guarantees
    to Ayala as to the length of his sentence.

    Ayala concedes that

    the Guidelines range applied to him was correctly calculated.


    Accordingly, this claim entitles him to no relief.
    Ayala
    characterization

    next
    of

    his

    challenges
    prior

    the

    Maryland

    degree assault as a crime of violence.


    claim for plain error.
    288, 295

    (4th

    Cir.

    district

    conviction

    courts

    for

    second

    Again, we review his

    See United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d

    2012)

    (applying

    plain

    error

    review

    appellant failed to object to enhancement at sentencing).

    where

    Under

    USSG

    2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii),

    defendants

    base

    offense level is enhanced sixteen levels if he reentered the


    United States after having been convicted of a felony crime of
    violence.

    A crime of violence under this provision includes

    an offense under state law that has as an element the use,


    attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the
    person of another.

    USSG 2L1.2, cmt. n.1(B)(iii).

    Upon reviewing the record, we find no error.


    held

    that,

    because

    the

    offense

    in

    question,

    We have

    second

    degree

    assault under Maryland law, cannot categorically be found to be


    a

    crime

    of

    violence,

    district

    court

    may

    use

    the

    modified

    categorical approach and look beyond the statutory elements of


    the

    crime

    to

    the

    charging

    document,

    the

    plea

    colloquy

    transcripts, or the plea agreement to determine whether that


    offense involved the use of physical force against the person of
    another.
    2011);

    United States v. Donnell, 661 F.3d 890, 893 (4th Cir.


    Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005).

    Here,

    the district court properly consulted the

    state transcripts of

    the

    that

    guilty

    plea

    colloquy

    and

    determined

    using physical force against the victim.

    Ayala

    admitted

    Therefore, Ayalas

    prior Maryland conviction for second degree assault constituted


    a crime of violence, and the district court properly applied the
    USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement.

    Finally,

    Ayala

    challenges

    the

    substantive

    reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court


    failed to accord sufficient weight to the circumstances of the
    offense

    and

    sentence

    his

    for

    history

    reasonableness,

    standard of review.
    (2007).

    In

    sentence,

    and

    circumstances.

    take
    Id.

    using

    an

    We

    abuse

    of

    review

    discretion

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

    assessing

    we

    characteristics.

    the
    into

    substantive
    account

    reasonableness

    the

    totality

    of
    of

    the
    the

    A sentence within the properly calculated

    Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.

    United States v.

    Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).


    After reviewing the record, we conclude that Ayalas
    sentence

    is

    substantively

    reasonable.

    The

    fifty-one

    month

    sentence is at the low end of the properly calculated Guidelines


    range, and Ayala has offered nothing to rebut the presumption of
    reasonableness accorded that sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like