United States v. Samuel Martinez Tapia , 706 F. App'x 801 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL MARTINEZ TAPIA, a/k/a Samuel Martinez, a/k/a Samuel Martinez
Tapia, a/k/a Frank Cervantes, a/k/a Ariel Vargas, a/k/a Max Hernandez-Tapia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00089-BO-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Martinez Tapia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of an alien subsequent to
an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and
was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. Tapia appeals, and argues that his sentence
is not substantively reasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We examine substantive
reasonableness considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Any sentence that is
within or below a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)]
factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Tapia posits that his sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. The
district court meaningfully considered defense counsel’s suggestions for a lower sentence
and explained its chosen sentence, and Tapia has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness we accord to his within-Guidelines-range sentence.
We therefore affirm Tapia’s sentence. 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
2