UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FELIPE DE JESUS HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00119-HEH-1)
Submitted: June 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth W.
Hanes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis,
Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, S.
David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felipe de Jesus Hernandez-Hernandez, a native and
citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to
one count of illegal reentry after prior removal following
conviction of a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(1) (2012). The court sentenced him to twenty-four months’
imprisonment, which included a three-month upward variance from
the high end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. On
appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the district court
procedurally erred by refusing to consider his arguments
regarding the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012). Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a 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). “Procedural reasonableness
evaluates the method used to determine a defendant’s sentence.”
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.
2010). We must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must
2
accompany every sentence.”). When a district court imposes a
sentence outside of the applicable Guidelines range, we consider
“whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect
to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to
the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir.
2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that
the district court properly heard, considered, and weighed
counsel’s arguments regarding § 3553(a)(6). The court also
considered the other § 3553(a) factors, as well as the advisory
Guidelines range, and clearly stated the basis for its decision
to impose a three-month upward variance. Accordingly, we find
no procedural error and affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
3