UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAIME MARQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Jaime Rodriguez Marquez,
a/k/a Nathan Anthony Reyes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00259-RJC-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016
Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William D. Auman, AUMAN LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Marquez Rodriguez pled guilty to illegal reentry by a
previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012).
He was sentenced to 41 months in prison — within his Guidelines
range of 41-51 months. Rodriguez now appeals, claiming that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When reviewing for substantive
reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances
to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set
forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2012)].” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If, as
here, the sentence is within the correctly calculated Guidelines
range, we may presume that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. Id. This presumption is rebutted only if the
defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
At Rodriguez’s sentencing, the district court stated that
it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and
Rodriguez’s request for a downward variance to 18 months.
2
However, the court stated that a variance was not appropriate,
especially in light of Rodriguez’s criminal history.
We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable
and that Rodriguez failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
3