United States v. Jose Diaz-Hernandez ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-4248
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE ADRIAN DIAZ-HERNANDEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00362-WO-1)
    Submitted: October 31, 2019                                  Decided: December 6, 2019
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph,
    Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Adrian Diaz-Hernandez appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district
    court following his guilty plea to illegal reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) (2012). Diaz-Hernandez argues that his sentence, which is within the properly
    calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because it is greater
    than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2012). We
    affirm.
    We review criminal sentences for reasonableness using “a deferential abuse-of-
    discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007). We evaluate whether
    the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under “the totality of the circumstances.”
    
    Id. at 51
    . “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
    presumptively reasonable,” United States v. White, 
    810 F.3d 212
    , 230 (4th Cir. 2016)
    (internal quotation marks omitted), and Diaz-Hernandez bears the burden of rebutting that
    presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
    § 3553(a) factors,” United States v. Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
    At sentencing, the district court established a Guidelines range of 18 to 24 months’
    imprisonment.       Diaz-Hernandez requested a downward departure pursuant to U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 cmt. n.7 (2018)—to account for the time he served
    in state custody on an unrelated conviction—or, alternatively, a downward variance. The
    district court denied Diaz-Hernandez’s requests. Because the district court explicitly
    recognized its authority to depart from the Guidelines range, its decision not to do so is not
    reviewable. United States v. Allen, 
    909 F.3d 671
    , 677 n.2 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139
    
    2 S. Ct. 1575
     (2019). In denying Diaz-Hernandez’s alternate request for a downward
    variance, the district court acknowledged several mitigating factors but ultimately
    concluded that a below-Guidelines sentence was insufficient to reflect the seriousness of
    the offense and to deter criminal conduct. Because Diaz-Hernandez has failed to rebut the
    presumption of reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines-range sentence,
    Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in imposing Diaz-Hernandez’s sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-4248

Filed Date: 12/6/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/6/2019