United States v. Pablo Rivera-Martinez

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

PABLO RIVERA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00014-TMC-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: November 5, 2013

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Attorney General,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Pablo Rivera-Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry

by a previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). His

Guidelines range was 41-51 months, and he was sentenced to

forty-one months in prison. Rivera-Martinez appeals, arguing

that the district court erred because it failed to explain why

it rejected his request for a lower sentence. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). As part of this review, we must consider whether

the district court adequately explained the selected sentence.

Id. In this regard, the district court “must place on the

record an individualized assessment based on the particular

facts of the case.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 321, 330

(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a

defendant “presents nonfrivolous reasons” for a sentence

different than the one imposed, the court is expected to provide

at least a “brief explanation” of the reasons for rejecting the

defendant’s request. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357

(2007).

We hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the presumptively reasonable,

within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v.

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In

2
selecting the sentence, the district court carefully applied

various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. The

court took into account Rivera-Martinez’s “significant” criminal

history, the circumstances of the instant offense, his

demonstrated lack of respect for the laws of this country, and

the need for the federal government to protect the integrity and

sovereignty of its borders.

Rivera-Martinez asked for a sentence below the

Guidelines range based on his claimed need to provide for his

five children, who reside in Mexico. The district court stated

that it sympathized with Rivera-Martinez’s desire to support his

children. However, the court found that, based on all the

circumstances, a sentence within the Guidelines range was

appropriate.

We conclude that the district court sufficiently

explained its decision to sentence Rivera-Martinez within the

properly calculated Guidelines range. It is apparent that the

court considered but rejected the request for a variant sentence

upon the determination that, on balance, application of various

sentencing factors warranted a forty-one-month sentence. We

also hold that the within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally

and substantively reasonable, and we accordingly affirm. 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