UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CARLOS PEREZ-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cr-00540-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Perez-Jimenez appeals the thirty-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of illegally
reentering the United States having been deported as an
aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2006). On appeal, Perez-Jimenez asserts that his sentence was
procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not
adequately explain the chosen sentence. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires
appellate consideration of the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
2
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and footnote
omitted). “[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the
Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily
require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356 (2007). The sentencing court need only show “‘that
[it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
Id. An explanation is adequate when it “allow[s] for meaningful
appellate review and . . . promote[s] the perception of fair
sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Although Perez-Jimenez did
not specifically object to the alleged inadequacy of the
district court’s ruling at sentencing, he preserved the issue
for appeal by drawing on § 3553(a) sentencing factors to request
a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court rendered a sufficiently individualized assessment to
permit appellate review of the sentence. The court noted its
consideration and rejection of Perez-Jimenez’s request for a
below-Guidelines sentence, and imposed a sentence within the
properly-calculated Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm as
reasonable the sentence imposed by the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4