UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4877
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE LUCAS SANTIAGO RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00009-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, John L. File,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Lucas Santiago Rivera appeals his seventy-seven-
month prison sentence for one count of assault with a dangerous
weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006). On appeal,
Rivera contends that his term of imprisonment is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the
purposes of sentencing. We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review
requires us to inspect for procedural reasonableness by ensuring
that the district court committed no significant procedural
errors, such as improperly calculating the guideline range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). We then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed,
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a
properly-calculated guideline range is reasonable. United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In the district court, Rivera did not object to the
court’s calculation of his guideline range or that he qualified
as a career offender as defined in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
2
Manual § 4B1.1 (2009). Instead, Rivera argued before the
district court and now on appeal that his designation as a
career offender overstated the significance of his prior crimes.
According to Rivera, the district court should have sentenced
him to a lesser term of imprisonment than that recommended by
the Guidelines because he is not the sort of recidivist that the
career offender classification was designed to target. Rivera
did not, however, move the district court for a downward
departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b), but rather argued that the
court should exercise its discretion to impose a variance
sentence.
The district court pointed to numerous reasons
underlying its imposition of Rivera’s sentence, focusing
specifically on Rivera’s repeated attempts to pursue and stab
the victim during the assault as well as his difficulty with
avoiding criminal behavior. Given the district court’s
discretion in sentencing, we conclude that the sentence is
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
We therefore affirm the district court’s 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
3