US v. Carlos Perez-Jimenez, No. 10-5325 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARLOS PEREZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cr-00540-HMH-1) Submitted: June 21, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Perez-Jimenez appeals the thirty-month sentence imposed following reentering the his guilty United plea States to one having count been of illegally deported as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). On appeal, Perez-Jimenez asserts that his sentence was procedurally adequately unreasonable explain the because chosen the district sentence. court For the did not following reasons, we affirm. This applying States, an 552 court abuse U.S. reviews of 38, a sentence discretion standard. 51 see (2007); consideration of reasonableness of a sentence. the reasonableness, Gall also Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). appellate for United v. United States v. This review requires procedural and substantive Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently Regardless of explained whether the below, or within-Guidelines record an individualized the selected district sentence, assessment facts of the case before it. court it based sentence. imposes must on an place the Id. above, on the particular United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 2 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). [W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. 338, 356 (2007). Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. The sentencing court need only show that [it] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. Id. An explanation is adequate when it allow[s] for meaningful appellate review and . . . promote[s] the perception of fair sentencing. not Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. specifically object to the Although Perez-Jimenez did alleged inadequacy of the district court s ruling at sentencing, he preserved the issue for appeal by drawing on § 3553(a) sentencing factors to request a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record reveals that the district court rendered a sufficiently individualized permit appellate review of the sentence. consideration and below-Guidelines rejection sentence, of imposed properly-calculated Guidelines range. reasonable dispense the with sentence oral imposed argument by a request sentence for within a the Accordingly, we affirm as the because 3 to The court noted its Perez-Jimenez s and assessment district the facts court. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
