United States v. Carlos Perez-Jimenez

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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