United States v. Pablo Rivera-Martinez , 545 F. App'x 225 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4351
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PABLO RIVERA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00014-TMC-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: November 5, 2013
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Attorney General,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pablo Rivera-Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry
by a previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). His
Guidelines range was 41-51 months, and he was sentenced to
forty-one months in prison. Rivera-Martinez appeals, arguing
that the district court erred because it failed to explain why
it rejected his request for a lower sentence. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). As part of this review, we must consider whether
the district court adequately explained the selected sentence.
Id. In this regard, the district court “must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 321, 330
(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a
defendant “presents nonfrivolous reasons” for a sentence
different than the one imposed, the court is expected to provide
at least a “brief explanation” of the reasons for rejecting the
defendant’s request. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357
(2007).
We hold that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the presumptively reasonable,
within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In
2
selecting the sentence, the district court carefully applied
various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. The
court took into account Rivera-Martinez’s “significant” criminal
history, the circumstances of the instant offense, his
demonstrated lack of respect for the laws of this country, and
the need for the federal government to protect the integrity and
sovereignty of its borders.
Rivera-Martinez asked for a sentence below the
Guidelines range based on his claimed need to provide for his
five children, who reside in Mexico. The district court stated
that it sympathized with Rivera-Martinez’s desire to support his
children. However, the court found that, based on all the
circumstances, a sentence within the Guidelines range was
appropriate.
We conclude that the district court sufficiently
explained its decision to sentence Rivera-Martinez within the
properly calculated Guidelines range. It is apparent that the
court considered but rejected the request for a variant sentence
upon the determination that, on balance, application of various
sentencing factors warranted a forty-one-month sentence. We
also hold that the within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally
and substantively reasonable, and we accordingly affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4