United States v. Cano-Martinez , 354 F. App'x 740 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-4360
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE CANO-MARTINEZ,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:08-cr-00452-HEH-1)
    Submitted:    October 30, 2009              Decided:   December 3, 2009
    Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellant.    Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, S. David
    Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose      Cano-Martinez       pled       guilty     without       a     plea
    agreement     to     one   count   of   illegal       reentry   of    an    aggravated
    felon, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
     (2006), and was sentenced
    to 27 months in prison.            Cano-Martinez’s sole argument on appeal
    is   that    the     district    court’s   twenty-seven         month      sentence    is
    substantively        unreasonable       because       he   asserts      that   it     was
    greater     than     necessary     to   meet    the    purposes      of    sentencing.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    After United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), we
    review a sentence for reasonableness, and “whether inside, just
    outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” this
    court      applies     a   “deferential        abuse-of-discretion          standard.”
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , __, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 591
    (2007).      The court first must “ensure that the district court
    committed no significant procedural error.”                     Id. at 597.          Only
    if   the    sentence       is   procedurally      reasonable      can      this     court
    evaluate the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, again
    using the abuse of discretion standard of review.                          Id.; United
    States v. Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
    In determining whether the district court committed any
    significant procedural error, this court looks to any failure in
    the calculation (or the improper calculation) of the Guidelines
    range, the treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory, the failure
    2
    to consider the 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009)
    factors, the selection of a sentence using clearly erroneous
    facts,     and     any     failure          to        adequately            explain      the    chosen
    sentence, including any deviation from the advisory Guidelines
    range.      Gall,        
    128 S. Ct. at 597
    .        This    court       applies    an
    appellate presumption of reasonableness to a within-Guidelines
    sentence.         See     United       States             v.   Allen,       
    491 F.3d 178
    ,      193
    (4th Cir. 2007); see also Nelson v. United States, 
    129 S. Ct. 890
    ,     892      (2009)        (emphasizing                   that     the       presumption         of
    reasonableness          accorded        a    within-Guidelines                    sentence      is   an
    appellate court presumption rather than a presumption enjoyed by
    a sentencing court).
    After       reviewing              the           record        and        considering
    Cano-Martinez’s arguments, we find that Cano-Martinez has not
    rebutted the presumption of reasonableness this court accords
    the    district    court’s           within-Guidelines                 sentence.          See    Allen,
    
    491 F.3d at 193
    .               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    the     court    and       argument             would       not   aid    the    decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-4360

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 740

Judges: Michael, Duncan, Agee

Filed Date: 12/3/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024