United States v. Miguel Rodriguez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00401-TMC-1)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to assault of a corrections
officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) (2012). The district
court sentenced Rodriguez to 37 months’ imprisonment, and he now
appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the district court committed procedural error by failing to
adequately explain the sentence imposed. Rodriguez was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We review the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51.
“Procedural errors include ‘failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
Only if the sentence is free of “significant procedural
error” does the court review the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, accounting for “the totality of the
2
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Any sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
substantively reasonable; this presumption is rebutted only by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Dowell, 771
F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory only, and did not rely on erroneous facts
in determining the sentence imposed. The district court
considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly discussed
the factors that were relevant to Rodriguez’s case. Because the
district court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range
and addressed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion or fail to
adequately explain the reason for its sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Rodriguez’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Rodriguez requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Rodriguez.
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
4