UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUGUSTIN CARBAJAL-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00313-RLW)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E.
Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, N. G. Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, K. Elizabeth Sieg, Andrew K.
Mann, Third-Year Law Students, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Augustin Carbajal-Martinez pled guilty to one count of
illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(4) (2000). The properly calculated advisory Sentencing
Guidelines’ range of imprisonment was seventy-seven to ninety-six
months. The district court took note of Carbajal-Martinez’s
criminal history and his prior re-entries after deportation, and
sentenced him to ninety-six months’ imprisonment. Carbajal-
Martinez claims the sentence is unreasonable and the court erred by
not considering his motion for a variance sentence below the
guidelines or by not providing an adequate statement of reasons.
Finding no error, we affirm.
A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness. United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005); United States v. Tucker, 473
F.3d 556, 560 (4th Cir. 2007). It is the district court’s
responsibility to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater
than necessary, to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a). Tucker,
473 F.3d at 561. If the appeals court concludes that the sentence
achieves this goal, the sentence may be affirmed as reasonable.
Id. To this end, the sentencing court should correctly determine
the advisory guideline range and decide whether a sentence within
the range serves the factors set out in § 3553(a). Id. “[A]
sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is
- 2 -
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006).
“[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). “A
sentence may be procedurally unreasonable . . . if the district
court provides an inadequate statement of reasons.” United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.) (alteration
added), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). “[A] district
court’s explanation should provide some indication (1) that the
court considered the § 3553(a) factors with respect to the
particular defendant; and (2) that it has also considered the
potentially meritorious arguments raised by both parties about
sentencing.” Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 380 (internal citations
omitted). A court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. “[I]n determining
whether there has been an adequate explanation, [this Court does]
not evaluate a court’s sentencing statements in a vacuum.” Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381. Rather, “[t]he context surrounding a
district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content for
[this Court] to evaluate both whether the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.” Id.
- 3 -
We find the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors and considered Carbajal-Martinez’s arguments for a lower
sentence. We further find the district court provided an adequate
explanation as to why it imposed a sentence at the high end of the
guidelines. Thus, we find the sentence was reasonable. We further
find that by virtue of the sentence within the guidelines, the
court denied Carbajal-Martinez’s motion for a variance sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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
- 4 -