UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00342-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 8, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez (“Jaramillo”) was convicted of
one count of unlawful reentry after being deported after having
been convicted of three misdemeanor offenses involving crimes
against the person, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006).
The district court sentenced Jaramillo to nineteen months’
imprisonment, a within-Guidelines sentence. On appeal,
Jaramillo contends the sentence is unreasonable because it is
longer than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If the sentence is free
of significant procedural error, the court also reviews its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). The sentence imposed must be
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes” of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within-
Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the
defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by
demonstrating 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).
2
The district court has “extremely broad discretion” in
deciding the weight to give each of the sentencing factors
raised by the parties. United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669,
679 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 187 (2011). “The
particular weight to be afforded aggravating and mitigating
factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the
sentencing judge.” United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265,
289 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is undisputed that under the Sentencing Guidelines,
Jaramillo had a total offense level of ten and was in Criminal
History Category IV, resulting in a Guidelines Sentence of
fifteen to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. Jaramillo, citing
several factors, sought a sentence at the low end of the
Guidelines while the Government sought a sentence at the high
end, noting factors that were not in Jaramillo’s favor. The
district court clearly considered the mitigating and aggravating
factors raised by the parties and determined that a sentence
near the high end of the Guidelines was appropriate. Given the
court’s broad discretion in this matter, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion by giving more weight to the
aggravating sentencing factors when considered against the
mitigating factors and imposing a nineteen month sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4