UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Gerry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00140-D-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerardo Rodriguez appeals from his 168-month sentence
for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and a quantity of
marijuana, and his concurrent sixty-month sentence for
possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and
aiding and abetting. The sole issue raised in Rodriguez’s brief
is whether the trial court erred by failing to give him a
greater variance in light of the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2010) factors. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
First, we note that Rodriguez was sentenced within his
properly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, rather
than any variant sentence. We review sentences for
reasonableness using a “deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard,” regardless of whether a sentence is inside or outside
the prescribed Sentencing Guidelines range. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). There is an appellate
presumption that a sentence falling within a correctly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. Id. at 51; see Rita
v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying such a
presumption in the Fourth Circuit). We find that Rodriguez’s
sentence was reasonable.
2
Although not raised as a separate issue in his brief,
Rodriguez argues that the district court failed to adequately
explain his sentence or otherwise provide individualized reasons
for his sentence. A district court commits procedural error
when it fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence. United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). While
district judges must provide a particularized assessment as to
why the sentence imposed is proper in each case, they need not
“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.”
Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. Moreover, “when a judge decides
simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so
will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita, 551
U.S. at 356.
Here, Rodriguez argues that the district court failed
to address all of his arguments for a lower sentence. Rodriguez
claims that the district court only addressed his prior military
service argument. This claim fails, however, as a review of the
record reveals that the court specifically addressed Rodriguez’s
family ties, whether he was remorseful for his crimes, and
whether he had turned his life around. Moreover, the court
specifically applied the § 3553(a) factors in determining his
sentence. Thus, we find that the district court adequately
addressed Rodriguez’s arguments and explained his sentence.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the 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