United States v. Alonso Cantu-Cantu

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 6, 2024
• Docket: 23-4526
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4526 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONSO CANTU-CANTU, a/k/a Primo, a/k/a Alonzo Cantu-Cantu,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00037-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 6, 2024

Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Matthew L. Felty, FELTY LAW FIRM, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, S. Cagle Juhan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4526 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Alonso Cantu-Cantu appeals from the 300-month sentence imposed after a jury

convicted him of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more, but less than five kilograms, of cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), (B)(ii). On appeal, Cantu-

Cantu challenges his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable, arguing that

the court did not sufficiently address his argument that a sentence within the calculated

Sentencing Guidelines range would result in a sentencing disparity with similarly situated

defendants. He argues that his 300-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because

it resulted in a disparity among similarly situated defendants on a national basis. Finding

no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a “deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). We first consider

whether the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,” including

insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and inadequate explanation of

the sentence imposed. Id. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.

2010). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also consider its substantive

reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. The

sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the

purposes” of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within-

Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable; the defendant bears the burden to

“rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4526 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes–Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review, we find Cantu-Cantu’s sentence both procedurally and substantively

reasonable. Procedurally, the district court “provide[d] an individualized assessment” and

“explain[ed] adequately the sentence imposed.” See United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240,

243 (4th Cir. 2020). The court acknowledged and sufficiently addressed Cantu-Cantu’s

request for a downward variance sentence based on the range of sentences of a small

number of similarly situated defendants. Regarding substantive reasonableness, Cantu-

Cantu has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines-range sentence is

reasonable under the § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED