US v. Alberto Mendoza-Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00355-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999672819].. [15-4210]

Appeal: 15-4210

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO MENDOZA-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Alberto Martinez Mendoza,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00355-CCE-1)

Submitted:

September 15, 2015

Decided:

October 6, 2015

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4210

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Alberto Mendoza-Martinez pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to unlawfully reentering the United States after
being

removed

following

an

aggravated

felony

conviction,

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012).

in

On appeal,

Mendoza-Martinez argues that his 50-month sentence, which was
one month below the top of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range of 41-51 months, is both procedurally and substantively
unreasonable.
We

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

review

any

criminal

sentence,

“whether

inside,

just

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under
a

deferential

States,

abuse-of-discretion

552

U.S.

consideration

of

38,

41

both

standard.”

(2007).
the

district
range,

reasonableness,

court
gave

properly

the

this

court

an

the

and

requires

substantive

whether

defendant’s
to

United

In determining

considers

opportunity

v.

review

Id. at 51.

calculated

parties

This

procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural

Gall

the

Guidelines

argue

for

an

appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failed to explain the selected sentence sufficiently.

Id. at

49-51.
Mendoza-Martinez does not dispute the computation of his
Guidelines range.

He instead asserts that the district court
2

Appeal: 15-4210

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

did not adequately explain its reasons for rejecting MendozaMartinez’s arguments in favor of a sentence at the bottom of the
Guidelines range.

Mendoza-Martinez contends that his arguments

in

particularly,

mitigation

—

Mendoza-Martinez’s

inevitable

removal to Mexico and the loss of contact with his family in
America that is likely to follow; his admitted reentries and
reasons

for

them;

and

his

family

support

and

employment

opportunities in Mexico — supported the imposition of a sentence
at

the

bottom

of

the

Guidelines

range.

Mendoza-Martinez

preserved this issue for appeal by requesting a sentence lower
than that which was ultimately imposed.

United States v. Lynn,

592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
While the court acknowledged the difficult family situation
in which Mendoza-Martinez found himself and Mendoza-Martinez’s
assurances that he would not again return to the United States
without

authorization,

it

rejected

facts warranted a lower sentence.

the

contention

that

these

The district court acted well

within its discretion in giving greater weight to the factors it
identified, particularly Mendoza-Martinez’s refusal to abide by
the law, which was evidenced by his repeated commission of drug
crimes

and

Jeffery,

reentries

631

“district
determining

F.3d

courts
the

after

669,

679

have
weight

removal.
(4th

Cir.

extremely
to

be

given
3

See
2011)
broad
each

United

States

v.

(explaining

that

discretion

when

of

the

§ 3553(a)

Appeal: 15-4210

Doc: 28

factors”).
claim

of

Filed: 10/06/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

On this record, we cannot accept Mendoza-Martinez’s
reversible

procedural

error

because

the

district

court’s explanation for the selected sentence reflects it had
“considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis
for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.”

United

States v. Avila, 770 F.3d 1100, 1108 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Mendoza-Martinez
substantively

next

unreasonable

circumstances.

contends
based

that

on

his

the

sentence

totality

of

is
the

This claim similarly derives from the arguments

pressed by defense counsel in favor of a sentence at the bottom
of the Guidelines range.
“A
appeal

sentence
to

be

within

the

substantively

Guidelines

range

reasonable.”

only

be

unreasonable
factors.”

rebutted
when

by

measured

showing
against

on

States

v.

“Such a presumption

that
the

presumed

United

Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 2015).
can

is

the

18

sentence

U.S.C.

is

§ 3553(a)

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We discern no abuse of the district court’s discretion on
this

record.

As

noted

above,

the

district

court

expressed

concern about Mendoza-Martinez’s repeated criminal conduct and
the resulting risk of harm to the public, which are in direct
alignment

with

two

of

the

§ 3553(a)
4

factors,

see

18

U.S.C.

Appeal: 15-4210

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/06/2015

§ 3553(a)(2)(A)

(seriousness

Pg: 5 of 5

of

offense);

id.

§ 3553(a)(2)(C)

(need to protect public), and relied on these factors to support
the

selected

sentence.

We

are

not

persuaded

by

Mendoza-

Martinez’s claim that his personal history and characteristics,
particularly the strain his removal will place on his family,
outweigh

the

factors.

district

court’s

assessment

of

these

§ 3553(a)

We therefore conclude that Mendoza-Martinez has not

overcome the presumption of substantive reasonableness afforded
his within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5