UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JESUS ARTURO MARTINEZ-CHAVEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (7:10-cr-00029-FL-1)
Submitted: August 15, 2011 Decided: August 17, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Clarke Speaks, THE SPEAKS LAW FIRM PC, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Eric Evenson, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jesus Arturo Martinez-
Chavez pleaded guilty to possession of a counterfeit United
States Resident Alien card, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)
(2006). In his presentence report (“PSR”), Martinez-Chavez had
a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2009) range of
zero to six months. The PSR also noted that the court might
wish to consider an upward departure, in light of evidence
establishing Martinez-Chavez’s involvement in a drug conspiracy.
The court imposed a variance sentence of eighteen months’
imprisonment and Martinez-Chavez timely appealed, challenging
the reasonableness of his sentence. Finding no error, 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). In evaluating reasonableness,
we must first determine whether the district court committed any
significant procedural errors in sentencing Martinez-Chavez.
Id.; see United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir.
2010). This assessment includes determining whether the
district court properly calculated Martinez-Chavez’s advisory
Guidelines range, whether it considered the factors enumerated
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and any arguments presented by the
parties, whether it based the sentence on an “individualized
2
assessment,” and whether it sufficiently explained the sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Martinez-Chavez requested a
sentence within the Guidelines range, or, in the alternative, a
sentence of no more than ten months, his claim of error was
properly preserved.
If we find no significant procedural error, we next
assesses the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Wilkinson, 590 F.3d at 269. When reviewing substantive
reasonableness, we “may consider the extent of the deviation
[from the recommended Guidelines range], but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range
of zero to six months. Further, the district court rendered an
individualized assessment in this case, adequately explained the
upward variance, and issued a procedurally and substantively
reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Martinez-Chavez’s conviction
and sentence. We deny as moot his motions to expedite. 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