United States v. Mejia-Martinez , 294 F. App'x 762 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-4058
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DIDIER MEJIA-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Carlos Velasques Hernandez,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:07-cr-00179-REP-1)
    Submitted:   August 29, 2008             Decided:   September 25, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles D. Lewis, HICKSTYMAS, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellant.  Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard D.
    Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Didier Mejia-Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry
    after being convicted of an aggravated felony, 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a),
    (b)(1) (2000).    The district court imposed a thirty-three month
    variance sentence above the advisory guideline range.                      Mejia-
    Martinez   appeals    his    sentence,     arguing   that   the    sentence      is
    unreasonable.    We affirm.
    According to a statement of facts that both parties
    accepted, Mejia-Martinez first entered the United States unlawfully
    in 2000 and was convicted in Virginia of possession of cocaine in
    April 2004, receiving a three-year suspended sentence.                     He was
    removed from the United States by immigration authorities in
    January 2004, in April 2004, and on May 5 and May 12, 2004.                      In
    sentencing Mejia-Martinez, the district court cited the nature and
    circumstances    of   the    offense   and   Mejia-Martinez’s          history   of
    unlawful reentries.         See 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a)(1) (West 2000 &
    Supp. 2008).    The court also noted that a fifth illegal reentry is
    a serious offense, and that the sentence should provide just
    punishment and adequate deterrence, and protect the public. See 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). The court observed
    that Mejia-Martinez’s prior lenient treatment had not deterred him
    from returning to the United States.
    After United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), a
    sentence   is   reviewed     for   reasonableness,     using      an    abuse    of
    2
    discretion standard of review.           Gall v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 597 (2007).        The first step in this review requires the
    appellate court to ensure that the district court committed no
    significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
    guideline range.       United States v. Evans, 
    526 F.3d 155
    , 160 (4th
    Cir. 2008).       Mejia-Martinez has not claimed any procedural error.
    The court then considers the substantive reasonableness
    of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
    circumstances.      
    Id. at 161
    .      While the court may presume a sentence
    within the guidelines range to be reasonable, it may not presume a
    sentence outside the range to be unreasonable.             Gall, 
    128 S. Ct. at 597
    .   Moreover, it must give due deference to the district court’s
    decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify the sentence.                    Id.
    Even   if   the    reviewing    court   would     have   reached   a   different
    sentencing result on its own, this fact alone is insufficient to
    justify reversal of the district court.             Evans, 
    526 F.3d at 160
    .
    Here,     the    district     court    followed    the     necessary
    procedural steps in sentencing Mejia-Martinez, properly calculating
    the    guidelines    range     and   considering    that   recommendation     in
    conjunction with the § 3553(a) factors.             In light of the facts of
    this case, and the district court’s meaningful articulation of its
    consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and its bases for varying
    from the recommended guideline range, we conclude that the district
    3
    court’s decision to vary and the extent of the variance were
    reasonable.
    We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
    court.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-4058

Citation Numbers: 294 F. App'x 762

Judges: Duncan, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 9/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023