US v. Jose Rodriguez-Trujillo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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