United States v. Heliberto Gomez

── United States v. Heliberto Gomez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4329 Doc: 29 Filed: 04/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4329 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HELIBERTO FIGUEROA GOMEZ, a/k/a Greivin Armindo Juares Mazariegos, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:25-cr-00031-RCY-1) Submitted: February 27, 2026 Decided: April 24, 2026 Before HARRIS and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Lindsey Halligan, United States Attorney and Special Attorney, Todd W. Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, Robert K. McBride, First Assistant United States Attorney, James Reed Sawyers, Assistant United States Attorney, Carla Jordan-Detamore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4329 Doc: 29 Filed: 04/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Heliberto Figueroa Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the imposition of a term of supervised release without adequate explanation rendered his sentence procedurally unreasonable. The Government contends that any shortcoming in the district court’s explanation was harmless. We affirm. “We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). In evaluating the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we “determin[e] whether the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “A sentencing court’s explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of its analysis of the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors.” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation modified). In other words, the court “must conduct an individualized assessment” by applying the § 3353(a) factors “to the particular defendant” being sentenced. Nance, 957 F.3d at 212-13 (citation modified). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4329 Doc: 29 Filed: 04/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 4 In determining whether there has been an adequate explanation, “we do not evaluate a [district] court’s sentencing statements in a vacuum.” United States v. Gaspar, 123 F.4th 178, 183 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Rather, w