United States v. David Roa-Bahena , 676 F. App'x 184 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4495
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ROA-BAHENA, a/k/a David Bahena Roa, a/k/a Roa David
Bahena,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00022-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 2, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Roa-Bahena pled guilty, pursuant to a written
agreement, to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced
Roa-Bahena to 37 months in prison, within the range established
by the Sentencing Guidelines, to run concurrently with his
undischarged state sentence. On appeal, Roa-Bahena challenges
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Roa-Bahena does not
assert any procedural sentencing error, we review only the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is substantively reasonable, rebuttable only “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. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of the
district court’s discretion in selecting the within-Guidelines-
range sentence. Thus, we conclude that Roa-Bahena has failed to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness applied to his sentence.
2
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