US v. Juan Michael Vargas-Torre

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00136-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999180273].. [13-4130]

Appeal: 13-4130

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN MANUEL VARGAS-TORRES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00136-RJC-1)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4130

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Juan Michael Vargas-Torres (a native and citizen of
Mexico)
illegally

pled

guilty,

without

reentering

the

a

written

United

plea

States

agreement,

subsequent

to

to
a

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b) (2006).
21;

combined

with

a

Vargas-Torres’ total offense level was
criminal

history

category

of

III,

his

advisory Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment.
After hearing defense counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines
sentence,
sentence

the
of

50

district
months’

court

imposed

imprisonment.

a

within-Guidelines

Vargas-Torres

appeals,

arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court “erroneously perceived repeat offending as to immigration”
and because it relied too heavily on prior drug convictions.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).

requires

This

review

consideration

of

both

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.

the
Id.;

see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, this
court considers whether the district court properly calculated
the

defendant’s

Guidelines

range,

treated

the

Guidelines

as

advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), factors,
analyzed

any

arguments

presented
2

by

the

parties,

and

Appeal: 13-4130

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
51.

A

sentence

imposed

within

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at

properly

calculated

Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court.
United

States,

551

U.S.

338,

347

(2007);

United

Rita v.

States

v.

Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
Vargas-Torres

concedes

that

the

district

court

committed no procedural error, but argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable.

We disagree.

The record reveals

that the district court based Vargas-Torres’ sentence on its
consideration

of

several

relevant

§

3553(a)

factors:

his

personal history and characteristics, the need to reflect the
seriousness
respect

of

for

the

the

deterrence.

current

law,

offense,

provide

Moreover,

the

just
court

and

the

need

punishment,
considered

to

and

promote
adequate

Vargas-Torres’

alleged fear of retaliation and his health issues, but found
that

neither

justified

Guidelines range.

a

departure

from

the

applicable

We find no error in the district court’s

consideration of either Vargas-Torres’ prior drug convictions or
his prior attempts to enter the United States, regardless of
whether those attempts led to criminal charges.

Accordingly, we

find

presumption

that

Vargas-Torres

cannot

overcome

the

of

reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
Therefore,
dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

Vargas-Torres’
because
3

the

sentence.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 13-4130

Doc: 24

contentions

are

Filed: 08/26/2013

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4