US v. Juan Jaramillo-Jimenez, No. 12-4506 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, a 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 a 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). 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 a Guidelines fifteen to twenty-one months imprisonment. several factors, sought a 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 Jaramillo s 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 court s 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 court s 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 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.
