United States v. Jose Romero-Martinez , 500 F. App'x 215 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE ELIAS ROMERO-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Armando Calderon Sol,
a/k/a Juan Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00328-H-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Without the benefit of a written plea agreement, Jose
Elias Romero-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled
guilty to illegally reentering the United States following his
removal as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced
Romero-Martinez to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Romero-Martinez contends that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131
S. Ct. 2946 (2011). Where, as here, the sentence is within the
properly calculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United
States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 3442 (2010).
Despite our circuit precedent, Romero-Martinez asserts
that the district court’s sentence is not entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness because the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2011)
enhancement for a prior deportation following a crime of
2
violence unfairly punishes the defendant for prior conduct.
This argument amounts to a policy attack on the Guidelines, and
is without merit. * Accord United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,
564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2009). The only other arguments
that Romero-Martinez offers pertain to the weight given by the
district court to certain factors in Romero-Martinez’s
background and his current family situation. We conclude that
these arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness.
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
*
This court has previously rejected the same argument,
albeit in unpublished, non-binding decisions. See United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 413 F. App’x 600, 601-02 (4th Cir.
2011); United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 278 F. App’x 290, 90-91
(4th Cir. 2008).
3