US v. Jose Rodriguez-Trujillo


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00332-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005307].. [16-4251]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4251 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-TRUJILLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00332-D-1) Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4251 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Jose Luis Rodriguez-Trujillo appeals his sentence of 37 months’ imprisonment imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). Rodriguez-Trujillo argues that this sentence unreasonable is adequately substantively account for his history because does not characteristics. and it He asserts that the district court wholly relied on a single prior felony conviction in imposing sentence and failed to properly weigh that he is not a career criminal, that he is hard-working and law-abiding, and that he entered the United States protect his family from a drug cartel in northern Mexico. addition, enhancement Rodriguez-Trujillo under U.S. contends that Sentencing the Guidelines to In 16-level Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2015) is “draconian” and not supported by any empirical research of the United States Sentencing Commission. Lastly, Rodriguez-Trujillo insists that his sentence creates an unwarranted sentence disparity between him and other similarly situated defendants. Where, procedural as We affirm. here, a reasonableness defendant of his does sentence, not the challenge court the reviews “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard,” considering “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 2 Appeal: 16-4251 “The Doc: 30 fact Filed: 01/18/2017 that concluded the that a Pg: 3 of 4 appellate court different might sentence reasonably was have appropriate insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” “Any sentence Guidelines that is range is within or below presumptively a properly is Id. calculated reasonable,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” (4th Cir. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 2014). We Rodriguez-Trujillo’s have reviewed arguments the and record and conclude that Rodriguez-Trujillo has failed to rebut this presumption. First, the district court thoroughly considered Rodriguez-Trujillo’s arguments that he did not have a serious criminal history and that he reentered the United States to earn money to protect district his court family from a cartel. appropriately However, determined the that Rodriguez-Trujillo’s prior conviction was significant and that he had the option to move his family south rather than leave them in States. a dangerous being The area district deported, and court illegally also Rodriguez-Trujillo properly reenter the United noted that, after attempted to reenter the United States and was turned away, yet he later entered the country behavior. without permission Although and was Rodriguez-Trujillo 3 arrested may for disagree illegal with the Appeal: 16-4251 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 weight that the district court assigned to these factors, his disagreement alone “does not in itself demonstrate an abuse of the court’s discretion.” United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 290 (4th Cir. 2012); see United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that district courts possess “extremely Second, broad this discretion” court has in weighing repeatedly arguments aimed at USSG § 2L1.2(b). sentencing rejected factors). similar policy See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Osorio, 604 F. App’x 278, 279 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4699) (collecting cases). Finally, Rodriguez-Trujillo fails to support cite any position. authority To the to contrary, this his court sentence has disparity affirmed similar sentences for defendants who have committed the same offense and have a comparable prior state conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Alonso-Gonzalez, 501 F. App’x 236 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-4581); United States v. Salas, 372 F. App’x 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (No. 09-4216). 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 4

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?