UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HONORIO VALDEZ-ELIAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00064-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 16, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Honorio Valdez-Elias pled guilty to illegal reentry
after removal as an aggravated felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). He received a sentence within the
Guidelines range of eighty-five months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Valdez-Elias contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish
the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm.
In challenging the reasonableness of his sentence,
Valdez-Elias contends that he presented mitigating evidence
demonstrating a sentence above the low end of the Guidelines
range set to run concurrently with his discharged state sentence
would be greater than necessary. Specifically, Valdez-Elias
presented evidence that he grew up in a poor home in Mexico;
that he worked continuously since he came to the United States;
his prior convictions were often linked to his alcohol
dependence; and that his sixteen-level sentencing enhancement
overstated the nature of his present offense. He also requested
that the district court run his federal sentence concurrently to
a discharged state sentence because he was not arraigned in
federal court until a year after his indictment, at which time
he had already served the state sentence. Valdez-Elias argued
that, had he been arraigned on federal charges when the
2
indictment was filed, he could have argued for a concurrent
sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 (2012).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). If there is no significant procedural error, we
examine the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
If the sentence is within or below the Guidelines range, we
presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United
States v. Yooho Weon, 772 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013).
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude
that the district court adequately considered Valdez-Elias’s
arguments for a mitigated sentence and weighed them in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court ultimately
concluded that Valdez-Elias’s criminal history and propensity
for violence and the need to protect the public warranted the
sentence imposed. The court further rejected Valdez-Elias’s
request for imposition of a sentence concurrent to a discharged
state sentence because Valdez-Elias had been in state custody
for an unrelated offense. We conclude that Valdez-Elias has not
presented sufficient grounds to disregard the presumption of
reasonableness that attaches to the district court’s within-
Guidelines sentence.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4