United States v. Trevor Robinson , 589 F. App'x 174 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TREVOR A. ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00077-BR-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: January 8, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Halerie F. Mahan,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Erin C. Blondel, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Trevor A. Robinson appeals the forty-six month,
within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
illegally reentering the United States subsequent to a
conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2) (2012). He argues that the district court failed
to explain its chosen sentence and that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review sentences for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that the
district court committed no “‘significant procedural error,’”
including improper calculation of the Guidelines range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
Robinson first challenges the district court’s
explanation of the sentence. In evaluating the sentencing
court’s explanation of a selected sentence, we have consistently
held that, while the district court must consider the statutory
factors and explain the sentence, it need not “robotically tick
through” every § 3353(a) factor on the record, particularly when
the court imposes a sentence within the properly calculated
2
Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006). At the same time, the district court “must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. While the “individualized assessment need
not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit
meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court adequately
explained its decision to impose a within-Guidelines sentence
when it rejected Robinson’s request for a downward departure.
The court considered several of the § 3553(a) factors within
this discussion, including the nature and circumstances of the
current offense; Robinson’s history and characteristics; and the
need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to provide deterrence and just punishment, and to promote
respect for the law. The district court noted that Robinson’s
prior federal convictions were serious and that he had
demonstrated disrespect for the law when he continued to use
marijuana upon his return to the United States. The court
rejected Robinson’s argument that his anticipated removal from
the United States following service of the sentence weighed in
favor of a lower sentence, pointing out that this concern
applied to all immigration cases and that there needed to be
3
some punishment for returning to the United States after
deportation.
Next, Robinson argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. Substantive reasonableness is
determined by considering the totality of the circumstances.
“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.
Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,
306 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421(2014).
We conclude that Robinson has failed to rebut the
presumed reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence. The
district court assessed the totality of the circumstances,
including the applicable § 3553(a) factors, in concluding a
Guidelines sentence was necessary. The court noted that
Robinson had quickly returned to the United States after his
prior deportation and had demonstrated a disregard for the laws
of this country through his criminal record and admissions at
sentencing.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5