US v. Juan Perez-Limon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00028-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998848369].. [11-4782]

Appeal: 11-4782

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4782

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN PEREZ-LIMON, a/k/a Rodrigo Aguilar Tlaczani,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00028-REP-1)

Submitted:

April 18, 2012

Decided:

May 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia D.
Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, S. David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4782

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Juan Perez-Limon appeals the forty-six-month sentence
imposed

following

his

guilty

plea

to

illegal

reentry

after

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
the

district

sentence.

court

On appeal, Perez-Limon argues that

imposed

a

substantively

unreasonable

We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court for

reasonableness,
standard.

applying

a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007);

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).

We

first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error.”
Gall,

552

U.S.

at

we

must

reasonable,

51.

If

consider

we

find

its

a

sentence

substantive

procedurally

reasonableness,

taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
we

presume

reasonable.
Cir.

a

within-Guidelines

sentence

is

United

On appeal,

substantively

United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 (4th

2010).

“Even

if

we

would

have

reached

a

different

sentencing result on our own, this fact alone is ‘insufficient
to justify reversal of the district court.’”

Pauley, 511 F.3d

at 474 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
Perez-Limon
reasonableness

of

his

does

not

sentence;
2

challenge
instead

he

the
argues

procedural
that

the

Appeal: 11-4782

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/07/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because (1) the
Guidelines

calculation

placed

too

much

weight

on

a

prior

conviction; (2) his minimal criminal history warranted a shorter
sentence; and (3) the illegal reentry Guidelines were not based
on

empirical

evidence.

Perez-Limon’s

first

two

claims

are

meritless, because they essentially ask this court to substitute
our judgment for that of the district court.
clearly

considered

variance,

and

Perez-Limon’s

we

will

defer

The district court

arguments
to

its

forty-six-month sentence was appropriate.

for

a

judgment

downward
that

a

See Pauley, 511 F.3d

at 474.
Perez-Limon
Sentence

is

not

also

entitled

argues
to

that

this

the

within-Guidelines

court’s

presumption

of

reasonableness because the sixteen-level enhancement he received
is

not

based

on

empirical

data

as

United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).

required

by

Kimbrough

v.

Kimbrough, however, did not

require district courts to consider the presence or absence of
empirical

data

underlying

the

Guidelines,

United

States

v.

Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 101-02 (4th Cir. 2012), nor did it
require

appellate

courts

to

discard

the

presumption

of

reasonableness for sentences “based on non-empirically grounded
Guidelines,”
366

(5th

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,

Cir.

2010).

Thus,

we

3

conclude

that

Perez-Limon’s

Appeal: 11-4782

Doc: 27

sentence

Filed: 05/07/2012

is

entitled

to

Pg: 4 of 4

a

presumption

of

substantive

reasonableness.
Because Perez-Limon did not rebut the reasonableness
presumption,
dispense

we

with

affirm
oral

the

argument

district
because

court’s
the

judgment.

facts

and

We
legal

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

4