United States v. Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00342-CCE-1)
Submitted:
February 8, 2013
Decided:
February 25, 2013
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez (Jaramillo) was convicted of
one count of unlawful reentry after being deported after having
been convicted of three misdemeanor offenses involving crimes
against the person, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) (2006).
The
district
court
imprisonment,
sentenced
Jaramillo
within-Guidelines
to
nineteen
sentence.
months
On
appeal,
Jaramillo contends the sentence is unreasonable because it is
longer
than
necessary
3553(a) (2006).
This
to
accomplish
the
goals
of
18
We affirm.
court
reviews
sentence
for
reasonableness,
applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
of
significant
procedural
error,
substantive reasonableness.
572,
575
(4th
U.S.C.
Cir.
the
Gall v.
If the sentence is free
court
also
reviews
its
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
2010).
The
sentence
imposed
must
be
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes
of
sentencing.
18
U.S.C.
3553(a).
within-
Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the
defendant
bears
the
burden
to
rebut
the
presumption
by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 3553(a) factors.
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Montes-Pineda,
2006)
omitted).
2
(internal
quotation
marks
The district court has extremely broad discretion in
deciding
the
weight
to
raised by the parties.
give
each
of
the
sentencing
factors
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669,
679 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 187 (2011).
particular
weight
to
be
afforded
aggravating
and
The
mitigating
factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the
sentencing judge.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265,
289 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is undisputed that under the Sentencing Guidelines,
Jaramillo had a total offense level of ten and was in Criminal
History
Category
IV,
resulting
in
Guidelines
fifteen to twenty-one months imprisonment.
several
factors,
sought
sentence
at
the
Sentence
of
Jaramillo, citing
low
end
of
the
Guidelines while the Government sought a sentence at the high
end, noting factors that were not in Jaramillos favor.
The
district court clearly considered the mitigating and aggravating
factors raised by the parties and determined that a sentence
near the high end of the Guidelines was appropriate.
Given the
courts broad discretion in this matter, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion by giving more weight to the
aggravating
sentencing
factors
when
considered
against
the
mitigating factors and imposing a nineteen month sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
3
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
