United States v. Jose Rodriguez-Trujillo , 675 F. App'x 301 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 is substantively unreasonable because it does not
adequately account for his history and characteristics. 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 to
protect his family from a drug cartel in northern Mexico. In
addition, Rodriguez-Trujillo contends that the 16-level
enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 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. We affirm.
Where, as here, a defendant does not challenge the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence, the court 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
“The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have
concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.
“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively 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.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the record and
Rodriguez-Trujillo’s arguments 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 his family from a cartel. However, the
district court appropriately determined that
Rodriguez-Trujillo’s prior conviction was significant and that
he had the option to move his family south rather than leave
them in a dangerous area and illegally reenter the United
States. The district court also properly noted that, after
being deported, Rodriguez-Trujillo attempted to reenter the
United States and was turned away, yet he later entered the
country without permission and was arrested for illegal
behavior. Although Rodriguez-Trujillo may disagree with the
3
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 broad discretion” in weighing sentencing factors).
Second, this court has repeatedly rejected similar policy
arguments aimed at USSG § 2L1.2(b). 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 cite any authority to support his sentence disparity
position. To the contrary, this court has 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 with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4