United States v. Fidel Rodriguez , 589 F. App'x 148 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FIDEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4317
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
YIDA PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00157-REP-1; 3:13-cr-00157-REP-2)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia; Samuel P.
Simpson, V, SAMUEL P. SIMPSON, V, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Samuel E.
Fishel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, the district court found
Fidel Rodriguez and Yida Perez guilty of four counts of
production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2251(a) (2012). The court sentenced the Appellants to the
statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months of imprisonment and
they now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The Appellants first challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the convictions. We review de novo a
district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d
209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United
States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The
verdict must be sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by
‘substantial evidence.’” Smith, 451 F.3d at 216. Substantial
evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could
accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence
is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal
3
authorities and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to
support the verdicts of guilt.
The Appellants also challenge the district court’s
rejection of their challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence
as grossly disproportionate to the offenses based on the
circumstances. “We review de novo constitutional claims,
including whether a sentence is proportional under the Eighth
Amendment.” United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 167 (4th
Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Myers, 280 F.3d 407, 416
(4th Cir. 2002)). In determining whether a sentence is
disproportionate to an offense, and thus cruel and unusual,
courts consider objective criteria, including the gravity of the
offense and harshness of the penalty, the sentences imposed on
other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and the sentences
imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions. Dowell,
771 F.3d at 167.
“In the context of an as-applied challenge, the
[Supreme] Court has explained that the narrow proportionality
principle of the Eighth Amendment does not require strict
proportionality between crime and sentence, but forbids only
extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the
crime.” United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 575 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 229 (2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Moreover, in a challenge to a sentence of a term of
4
years, an extensive proportionality analysis is not required and
challenges to “lesser sentences that are clearly within the
prerogative of Congress and subject to imposition by a district
court may be disposed of swiftly.” Id. at 578-79 (internal
quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court
correctly determined that the mandatory minimum sentence is not
grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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
5