United States v. Pablo Rodriguez-Paez , 606 F. App'x 87 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PABLO RODRIGUEZ-PAEZ, a/k/a Pablo Rodriguez Paez, a/k/a
Pablo Paez-Rodriguez, a/k/a Pablo Paez Rodriguez, a/k/a
Pablo P. Rodriguez, a/k/a Pablo Rodriguez, a/k/a Pablo
Rodregues, a/k/a Pablo Rodriquez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00250-TDS-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Kristin J. Uicker, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pablo Rodriguez-Paez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering
the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). The district court sentenced
Rodriguez-Paez to eight months of imprisonment followed by one
year of supervised release and he now appeals. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Rodriguez-Paez argues that the district court
abused its discretion in imposing a term of supervised release.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we
apply a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within Guidelines sentence).
Pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, a court should not
ordinarily impose a term of supervised release for someone who
is a deportable alien. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5D1.1(c) & cmt. n.5 (2014). However, if the court determines
that such an imposition would provide an added measure of
deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances
of a particular case, imposition of a term of supervised release
may be appropriate. Id. We have thoroughly reviewed the record
2
and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term
of supervised release based on the specific facts of Rodrigez-
Paez’s case.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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
3