United States v. Cirilo Mata-Rosales , 473 F. App'x 324 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4996
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CIRILO MATA-ROSALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00079-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cirilo Mata-Rosales appeals the seventy-eight-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry by
an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). On appeal,
Mata-Rosales challenges only the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence, arguing that he rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness afforded to his within-Guidelines sentence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, we “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing
Guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). This
presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2006)] factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d
375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we conclude that Mata-Rosales failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness. Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Mata-Rosales to seventy-eight
months’ imprisonment, a sentence within the applicable
2
Sentencing Guidelines range. See Gall, 522 U.S. at 51
(providing standard of review).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3