US v. Jose Romero-Martinez, No. 12-4333 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4333 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE ELIAS ROMERO-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Juan Ramirez, a/k/a Armando Calderon Sol, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00328-H-1) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Without the benefit of a written plea agreement, Jose Elias Romero-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States following his removal as an § 1326(a), aggravated (b)(2) Romero-Martinez appeal, felon, (2006). to The thirty-three Romero-Martinez substantively in district months contends unreasonable. violation For 8 court U.S.C. sentenced imprisonment. that the of his On sentence following reasons, is we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, U.S. 552 38, 51 standard. (2007); see Gall also v. United United States v. Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). Where, as here, the sentence is within the properly Guidelines that calculated the sentence is range, substantively we apply a presumption reasonable. See United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3442 (2010). Despite our circuit precedent, Romero-Martinez asserts that the district presumption of Guidelines Manual enhancement for court s sentence reasonableness a because ( USSG ) prior is not the entitled U.S. 2 following a Sentencing § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) deportation to a (2011) crime of violence unfairly punishes the defendant for prior conduct. This argument amounts to a policy attack on the Guidelines, and is without merit. * Accord United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2009). The only other arguments that Romero-Martinez offers pertain to the weight given by the district court to certain factors in Romero-Martinez s background and his current family situation. We conclude that these arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * This court has previously rejected the same argument, albeit in unpublished, non-binding decisions. See United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 413 F. App x 600, 601-02 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 278 F. App x 290, 90-91 (4th Cir. 2008). 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.
