US v. Alphonso Rodriguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00332-FL-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998846450].. [10-4979]

Appeal: 10-4979

Doc: 76

Filed: 05/03/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALPHONSO RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Alphonso Rodirguez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00332-FL-4)

Submitted:

April 30, 2012

Decided:

May 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4979

Doc: 76

Filed: 05/03/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alphonso Rodriguez pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea

agreement,

codefendants

to

one

with

count

conspiracy

charging
to

him

and

distribute

eleven

contraband

cigarettes, transport stolen merchandise in interstate commerce,
and sell and dispose of counterfeit tax stamps, in violation of
18

U.S.C.

§ 371

(2006).

As

part

of

the

plea

agreement,

Rodriguez agreed to pay restitution for lost tax revenue, with
the

total

amount

of

restitution

not

exceeding

$20,000.

The

district court sentenced Rodriguez to eight months in prison and
ordered

him

to

pay

restitution

Rodriguez timely appealed.
On
Rodriguez

appeal,

argues

the

amount

of

$20,000.

claims.

First,

We affirm.

Rodriguez

that

in

the

raises

district

two

court

violated

his

equal

protection rights because the court did not consider the fact
that

as

a

immigration
Second,

result

of

his

consequences

Rodriguez

sentence,

not

claims

faced

that

the

Rodriguez
by

other

district

faced

adverse

coconspirators.
court

erred

in

ordering restitution in the amount of $20,000 after incorrectly
interpreting the plea agreement to preclude a lower award.
We
deferential

review

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

for

standard.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007).
involves two steps.

reasonableness
Gall

“under
v.

a

United

This standard of review

Under the first, we examine the sentence
2

Appeal: 10-4979

for

Doc: 76

Filed: 05/03/2012

significant

review

its

procedural

substantive

Pg: 3 of 4

errors,

and

under

second,

we

United

reasonableness.

the

States

v.

Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010).
Significant

procedural

errors

include

improperly

calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, choosing a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, and failing to sufficiently explain the
chosen
range.

sentence,

including

any

deviation

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

from

the

Guidelines

If there are no significant

procedural errors, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the

sentence,

under

the

totality

of

the

circumstances.

Id.

Where, as here, the district court imposes a variant sentence,
we consider the extent of the variance, giving deference to the
district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors justify
the level of variance.

Id.

We conclude that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error.
his

sentence

is

unreasonable

While Rodriguez argues that

because

he

may

face

adverse

immigration consequences as a result of his sentence that his
coconspirators, U.S. citizens, will not, it is well settled that
codefendants and coconspirators may be sentenced differently for
their commission of the same offense.
409 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2005).
the

Equal

Protection

Clause

“only
3

United States v. Pierce,

A criminal sentence violates
if

it

reflects

disparate

Appeal: 10-4979

Doc: 76

Filed: 05/03/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

treatment of similarly situated defendants lacking any rational
basis.”

Id. at 234.

Our review of the record reveals no valid

equal protection challenge to Rodriguez’s sentence.

Therefore,

this claim lacks merit.
Rodriguez
restitution

order

next

asserts

was

reasonableness

standard.”

the

unreasonable

misconstrued the plea agreement.
for

that

“under

a

district

because

court’s

the

court

Again, we review a sentence

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall, 552 U.S. at 41, 51 (2007).

The record belies

Rodriguez’s interpretation of the district court’s construction
of the plea agreement and its reason for the restitution amount.
Accordingly, the court’s restitution order was not unreasonable.
We
dispense

affirm

with

oral

the

judgment

argument

of

the

because

district

the

facts

court.
and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4