UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO MATA-MALDONADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00054-D-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
After Alejandro Mata-Maldonado pleaded guilty to
illegal reentry by a convicted felon, the district court
calculated his advisory Guidelines range at 18 to 24 months’
imprisonment. The district court then varied upwards and
sentenced Mata-Maldonado to 42 months’ imprisonment, based upon
his repeated disregard for immigration laws and the near
certainty that he would again re-enter the country illegally.
Mata-Maldonado appeals, asserting that his sentence was
unreasonable because (1) the district court failed to address
his argument that an eight-level increase of his base offense
level based on a prior conviction was sufficient to punish him
and (2) the sentence was unduly harsh.* Finding no error, we
affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence, “whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range,” under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider inter alia whether the
*
Mata-Maldonado also argues that the district court erred
by not first considering a departure prior to imposing a
variance. However, he acknowledges that we rejected such an
argument in United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011).
2
district court considered the arguments presented by the
parties. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007). When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we “take
into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
Mata-Maldonado first challenges his sentence on the
ground that the district court failed to adequately consider his
argument that his Guideline calculation rested heavily on the
determination that he re-entered the United States after having
been convicted of an aggravated felony. Mata-Maldonado argued
that his prior burglary conviction was not serious enough to
support such a large enhancement and urged the court not to
impose a variance sentence in recognition of the fact that the
Guidelines range was already harsh. However, the district court
explicitly considered and rejected this argument, ruling that,
while the Guidelines range was properly calculated, it failed to
take into account Mata-Maldonado’s “relentless and persistent”
violation of the immigration laws. In addition, the court noted
that it would have imposed the same sentence, even if the
Guidelines enhancement had not been applied.
Turning to the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, we afford “due deference to the district court’s
decision that the [18 U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a) [(West 2000 & Supp.
3
2011)] factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Our review of the record reveals that the
district court meticulously considered Mata-Maldonado’s
circumstances and history, the seriousness of the offense, the
need to protect the public and deter criminal activity, and the
twenty-year statutory maximum sentence for the offense. The
court decided that the variance sentence was sufficient but not
greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of § 3553(a).
We find that the extent of the deviation from the Guidelines
range was adequately explained and well within the district
court’s discretion.
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Mata-Maldonado. 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
4