US v. Sabino Duque-Diaz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00118-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999618284].. [14-4910]

Appeal: 14-4910

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SABINO DUQUE-DIAZ,
Gomez-Duval,

a/k/a

Jorge

Ivan

Medina,

a/k/a

Saul

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00118-BR-1)

Submitted:

June 19, 2015

Decided:

July 10, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curium opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G.
Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne
V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4910

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sabino Duque-Diaz was convicted of unlawful reentry into
the

United

States

after

previous

removal

for

an

aggregated

felony, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
Duque-Diaz
felony
greater

had

drug
than

been

trafficking
thirteen

sixteen-level

to

months,

and

Mexico

conviction

sentencing

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i),
incarceration.

deported

the

a

2006

carrying
district

enhancement

imposed

in

a

Because

following
sentence

court

applied

under

sentence

of

a
of
a

U.S.S.G.
64

months’

On appeal, Duque-Diaz argues that this within-

Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
“[A]ppellate courts examine sentencing determinations under
an abuse-of-discretion standard, which translates to review for
‘reasonableness.’”

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220, 261–62 (2005)).

“A sentence within the Guidelines

range is presumed on appeal to be substantively reasonable.”
United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015).
“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

306 (4th Cir. 2014).

2

Appeal: 14-4910

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Applying this presumption of reasonableness to Duque-Diaz’s
sentence,

we

discretion.
Guidelines]

conclude

the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

The district court noted that it “considered [the
range

as

well

as

the

other

relevant

factors

set

forth in the advisory sentencing guidelines and those set forth
in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)”

before imposing the sentence.

Further, the district court found Duque-Diaz’s criminal history
was serious and indicated an increased risk to the public, in
direct alignment with two of the 3553(a) factors.

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) (seriousness of offense); id. § 3553(a)(2)(C)
(need to protect public).

Duque-Diaz has not shown that his

sentence is unreasonable under any of the § 3553(a) factors.

We

therefore conclude that Duque-Diaz’s within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable.
The
dispense

judgment
with

contentions

are

of

oral

the

district

argument

adequately

court

because

presented

in

is

the
the

affirmed.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3