United States v. Mendez-Reyes , 432 F. App'x 246 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS HERIBERTO MENDEZ-REYES, a/k/a Chrstian Torres, a/k/a
Luis N. Reyes, a/k/a Luis H. Reyes, a/k/a Luis Mendez, a/k/a
Luis Reyes, a/k/a Christian Torres, a/k/a Joaquin Andrades
Mendes, a/k/a Luis Torres,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00090-CMH-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2011 Decided: May 27, 2011
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Geremy Kamens,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research
and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Kondi J. Kleinman,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Heriberto Mendez-Reyes, a citizen of El Salvador,
pled guilty without a plea agreement to illegally reentering the
United States subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b) (2006), and was
sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-six months
in prison. Mendez-Reyes claims on appeal that his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately
explain the reasons behind the chosen sentence and failed to
address his argument for a downward variance. Finding no error,
we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.;
see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). A
sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
In determining the procedural reasonableness of a
sentence, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
2
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Regardless of whether the district court
imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must
place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Where, as here, the district court imposes a
within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation may be “less
extensive, while still individualized.” United States v.
Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 2128 (2010). However, that explanation must be sufficient
to allow for “meaningful appellate review” such that the
appellate court need “not guess at the district court’s
rationale.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The district court is not required to
“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). With
regard to a sentence within the Guidelines range, “[g]enerally,
an adequate explanation . . . is provided when the district
court indicates that it is “rest[ing] [its] decision upon the
Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a
proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional
mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that
the case before him is typical.” United States v. Hernandez,
3
603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007)).
Mendez-Reyes does not dispute that the district court
properly calculated his Guidelines range under the advisory
Guidelines. Rather, he argues that the district court failed to
explain its reasons for the particular sentence it imposed and
failed to address his primary argument for a downward variance
sentence — the unwarranted sentencing disparity between the
“fast-track” districts and “non-fast-track” districts (including
the Eastern District of Virginia).
We have reviewed the transcript of Mendez-Reyes’
sentencing hearing and find that the district court adequately
explained the within-Guidelines sentence chosen for Mendez-
Reyes. Nor is Mendez-Reyes’ sentence unreasonable because the
district court failed to address his argument regarding the
sentencing disparity between “fast-track” and “non-fast-track”
districts. First, Mendez-Reyes would not qualify for the fast-
track program, even if one existed in the Eastern District of
Virginia, because he did not enter into a plea agreement and
waive his rights to file pretrial motions, to appeal, and to
challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United
States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, this court has found that disparities between fast-
4
track and non-fast-track sentences are not “unwarranted”
sentencing disparities. Id. at 244.
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
5