US v. Odil Rodriguez-Moreno

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00097-TSE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999063789].. [12-4663]

Appeal: 12-4663

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4663

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ODIL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, a/k/a Odie A. Rodriguez,
a/k/a Odil A. Rodriguez, a/k/a Odil Antonio Rodriguez, a/k/a
Antonio Rodriguez-Moreno, a/k/a Odila Morono,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00097-TSE-1)

Submitted:

February 26, 2013

Decided:

March 14, 2013

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Whitney E. C. Minter, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Stacy L. Bogert, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4663

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Odil
guilty

to

Antonio

illegal

Rodriguez-Moreno

reentry

after

(“Rodriguez”)

removal

as

a

pled

convicted

aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2006).

The district court sentenced him to seventeen months’

imprisonment
appeal,
the

and

a

Rodriguez

sentence,

adequately

one-year
challenges

contending

explain

the

term
the

that

of

supervised

procedural

the

imposition

district
of

a

release.

On

reasonableness
court

term

failed

of

of
to

supervised

release when he was to be deported after serving his term of
imprisonment.

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.1(c) &

cmt. n.5 (2011); USSG app. C, amend. 756 (effective Nov. 1,
2011).

We affirm.
When

imposing

a

sentence,

the

district

court

“must

adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for a meaningful
appellate

review

sentencing.”

and

to

promote

the

perception

of

fair

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).

However, a district court is not required to discuss the 18
U.S.C.
fashion.

§ 3553(a)

(2006)

sentencing

factors

in

a

checklist

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.

2006).
On appeal, we review a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[] under a

2

Appeal: 12-4663

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
41.

Gall, 552 U.S. at

Because Rodriguez did not object below to the adequacy of

the district court’s explanation for the sentence it imposed,
our review is for plain error.

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d

572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993) (detailing plain error standard).
After reviewing the record on appeal and the parties’
briefs, we conclude that the district court adequately explained
its

imposition

of

a

addressed

Rodriguez’s

reentries

into

term

the

of

criminal
United

supervised
history

States.

release.

and

prior

Taking

The

court

unauthorized

the

facts

and

circumstances of Rodriguez’s case into consideration, the court
created a special condition of supervised release, a prohibition
against

unauthorized

reentry.

Although

the

court

did

not

specifically tie the § 3553(a) factors to the term of supervised
release in a checklist manner, it is apparent that the court
considered the specific facts and circumstances of Rodriguez’s
case and found that an added measure of deterrence was needed.
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

committed

no

procedural

error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-4663

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

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

4