United States v. Barrera-Renteria

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAUL BARRERA-RENTERIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00310-JAB)
Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: January 29, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, P.A., Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Saul Barrera-Renteria pled guilty to illegal reentry
after having been convicted of a felony and being deported, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Barrera-Renteria
challenged his eighty-four-month sentence on appeal; we vacated the
sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United
States v. Barrera-Renteria, 185 F. App’x 313 (4th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished). The district court adopted without objection the
same sentencing guidelines calculations it adopted at the initial
sentencing and sentenced Barrera-Renteria to seventy months’
imprisonment, at the bottom of the guidelines range. Barrera-
Renteria again challenges his sentence on appeal, claiming it is
unreasonable. We affirm.
In imposing a sentence after Booker, courts still must
calculate the applicable guideline range after making the
appropriate findings of fact and then consider the range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and
§ 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will affirm a
post-Booker sentence if it is within the statutorily prescribed
range and is reasonable. Id. at 433. A sentence within the proper
advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v.
- 2 -
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
Barrera-Renteria contends the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence because it did not grant him a variance below
the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range. He argued at
resentencing his case was distinguishable from many other illegal
reentry cases because of his particular history and characteristics
and because he did not have an opportunity to take part in the
fast-track program available in other districts. Barrera-
Renteria’s contention fails. See Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345 (stating
district court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection” or “explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the
record”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); United
States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 243-45 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 542 (2006) (holding sentencing disparities
between defendants receiving and defendants not receiving
fast-track downward departures “warranted” as matter of law and do
not justify imposition of below-guidelines variance sentence).
Resentencing was conceptually simple, the district court considered
the arguments presented at the resentencing hearing, and the court
was not required to comment more extensively. See Rita, 127 S. Ct.
at 2469. We conclude the sentence was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Barrera-Renteria’s sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -