United States v. Jorge Herrera-Castaneda , 545 F. App'x 229 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE ANTONIO HERRERA-CASTANEDA, a/k/a Antonio Herrera
Castaneda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00328-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 24, 2013 Decided: November 5, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Kyle P. Pousson, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Antonio Herrera-Castaneda pled guilty, pursuant
to a written plea agreement, to illegal reentry by an aggravated
felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2) (2012). The
district court sentenced Herrera-Castaneda to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment, a term at the top of his properly
calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Herrera-
Castaneda challenges the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, contending that it is greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review Herrera-Castaneda’s sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we
“examine[] the totality of the circumstances,” and, if the
sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range,
apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216-17 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if
the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
We conclude that Herrera-Castaneda’s twenty-four-month
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, as
Herrera-Castaneda fails to overcome the appellate presumption of
reasonableness afforded his sentence. The district court
considered the § 3553(a) factors, noting Herrera-Castaneda’s
criminal past and lack of respect for the law as reflected in
his repeat illegal reentries into the United States. Moreover,
the court acknowledged the arguments Herrera-Castaneda made in
mitigation and considered Herrera-Castaneda’s particular needs
in crafting his sentence, recommending that he receive substance
abuse treatment. In sum, we conclude that the district court
acted within its discretion by finding that Herrera-Castaneda’s
twenty-four-month sentence was not greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
3