US v. Jesus Rivera-Nava, No. 08-4202 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4202 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS RIVERA-NAVA, Cordero-Nava, a/k/a Jesus Cordero, a/k/a Jesus Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District District of North Carolina, at Durham. Chief Judge. (1:07-cr-00166-JAB-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Court for the Middle James A. Beaty, Jr., Decided: October 16, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas R. Wilson, GREEN & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesus Rivera-Nava pled guilty to unauthorized reentry of a removed alien whose removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. The district court properly calculated Rivera-Nava s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to be 57 to 71 months of imprisonment and sentenced him to 66 months in prison. Rivera-Nava appeals, alleging his sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable. is both For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence for an abuse of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). discretion. To determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion, we undertake a two-part analysis. (4th Cir. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 2007). significant First, procedural errors, substance of the sentence. include improperly we Id. calculating examine and the second, sentence we evaluate for the Significant procedural errors the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) adequately explain the given sentence. factors, or failing to Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. Substantive reasonableness entails a review of the totality of the circumstances, and we may presume that a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007). 2 Id.; see Rita v. Here, the district court followed the necessary steps in sentencing Rivera-Nava. calculated, the court heard The Guidelines range was properly from both parties regarding the Guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors, and the court noted that it considered all the factors and concluded that the Guidelines range provided an appropriate basis for determination of sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that court need not robotically tick through every subsection of § 3553(a)), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the court s decision to sentence Rivera-Nava in the middle of the Guidelines range, especially when Rivera-Nava himself argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range, noted that the presentence report covered most of the statutory factors, and did not move for a variance sentence. 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
