US v. Odil Rodriguez-Moreno, No. 12-4663 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4663 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ODIL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, a/k/a Odie A. Rodriguez, a/k/a Odil A. Rodriguez, a/k/a Odil Antonio Rodriguez, a/k/a Antonio Rodriguez-Moreno, a/k/a Odila Morono, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00097-TSE-1) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Whitney E. C. Minter, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Stacy L. Bogert, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Odil guilty to Antonio illegal Rodriguez-Moreno reentry after ( Rodriguez ) removal as a pled convicted aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to seventeen months imprisonment appeal, the and a Rodriguez sentence, adequately one-year challenges contending explain the term the that of supervised procedural the imposition district of a release. On reasonableness court term failed of of to supervised release when he was to be deported after serving his term of imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.1(c) & cmt. n.5 (2011); USSG app. C, amend. 756 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). We affirm. When imposing a sentence, the district court must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for a meaningful appellate review sentencing. and to promote the perception of fair Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). However, a district court is not required to discuss the 18 U.S.C. fashion. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors in a checklist United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). On appeal, we review a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[] under a 2 deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 41. Gall, 552 U.S. at Because Rodriguez did not object below to the adequacy of the district court s explanation for the sentence it imposed, our review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993) (detailing plain error standard). After reviewing the record on appeal and the parties briefs, we conclude that the district court adequately explained its imposition of a addressed Rodriguez s reentries into term the of criminal United supervised history States. release. and prior Taking The court unauthorized the facts and circumstances of Rodriguez s case into consideration, the court created a special condition of supervised release, a prohibition against unauthorized reentry. Although the court did not specifically tie the § 3553(a) factors to the term of supervised release in a checklist manner, it is apparent that the court considered the specific facts and circumstances of Rodriguez s case and found that an added measure of deterrence was needed. We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error. 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 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.
