US v. Jaime Marquez Rodriguez


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00259-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999907659].. [16-4011]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4011 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAIME MARQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a a/k/a Nathan Anthony Reyes, Jaime Rodriguez Marquez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00259-RJC-1) Submitted: July 22, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016 Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Auman, AUMAN LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4011 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jaime Marquez Rodriguez pled guilty to illegal reentry by a previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). He was sentenced to 41 months in prison — within his Guidelines range of 41-51 months. Rodriguez now appeals, claiming that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard.” U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We affirm. “under a deferential See Gall v. United States, 552 When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2012)].” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If, as here, the sentence is within the correctly calculated Guidelines range, we may reasonable. presume Id. This that the sentence presumption is is substantively rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). At Rodriguez’s sentencing, the district court stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and Rodriguez’s request for a downward 2 variance to 18 months. Appeal: 16-4011 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 However, the court stated that a variance was not appropriate, especially in light of Rodriguez’s criminal history. We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable and that Rodriguez reasonableness we failed accord Accordingly, we affirm. to his rebut the presumption within-Guidelines of sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?