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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4011]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
JAIME MARQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a
a/k/a Nathan Anthony Reyes,
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)
July 22, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
See Gall v. United States, 552
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).
here, the sentence is within the correctly calculated Guidelines
defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Montes-Pineda,
At Rodriguez’s sentencing, the district court stated that
it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and
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
Accordingly, we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
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?