US v. Felipe Hernandez-Hernandez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00119-HEH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999404700].. [13-4904]

Appeal: 13-4904

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FELIPE DE JESUS HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00119-HEH-1)

Submitted:

June 24, 2014

Decided:

July 29, 2014

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth W.
Hanes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis,
Research
and
Writing
Attorney,
Richmond,
Virginia,
for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, S.
David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4904

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Felipe

de

Jesus

Hernandez-Hernandez,

a

native

and

citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to
one

count

of

illegal

conviction

of

a

(b)(1) (2012).

reentry

felony,

in

after

violation

prior
of

removal
U.S.C.

8

following
§ 1326(a),

The court sentenced him to twenty-four months’

imprisonment, which included a three-month upward variance from
the high end of the properly calculated Guidelines range.
appeal,

Hernandez-Hernandez

procedurally

erred

by

contends

refusing

that

to

the

consider

district
his

On

court

arguments

regarding the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012).

Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under
a

deferential

States,

552

abuse-of-discretion

U.S.

38,

41

(2007).

standard.”

Gall

“Procedural

v.

United

reasonableness

evaluates the method used to determine a defendant’s sentence.”
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.
2010).

We

calculated
§ 3553(a)
parties,

must
the

assess
advisory

factors,
and

whether

Guidelines

analyzed

sufficiently

the

any

district
range,

arguments

explained

the

court

properly

considered

presented
selected

by

the
the

sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must
2

Appeal: 13-4904

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/29/2014

accompany every sentence.”).

Pg: 3 of 3

When a district court imposes a

sentence outside of the applicable Guidelines range, we consider
“whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect
to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to
the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
States

v.

Hernandez-Villanueva,

473

F.3d

118,

123

United

(4th

Cir.

2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that
the

district

counsel’s

court

properly

arguments

regarding

heard,

considered,

§ 3553(a)(6).

and

The

weighed

court

also

considered the other § 3553(a) factors, as well as the advisory
Guidelines range, and clearly stated the basis for its decision
to impose a three-month upward variance.
no

procedural

court.
legal
before

error

and

affirm

the

Accordingly, we find

judgment

of

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3