US v. Felipe Hernandez-Hernandez, No. 13-4904 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FELIPE DE JESUS HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00119-HEH-1) Submitted: June 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis, Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Felipe de Jesus Hernandez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to one count of illegal conviction of a (b)(1) (2012). reentry felony, in after violation prior of removal U.S.C. 8 following § 1326(a), The court sentenced him to twenty-four months imprisonment, which included a three-month upward variance from the high end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez procedurally erred by contends refusing that to the consider district his On court arguments regarding the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012). Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under a deferential States, 552 abuse-of-discretion U.S. 38, 41 (2007). standard. Gall Procedural v. United reasonableness evaluates the method used to determine a defendant s sentence. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). We calculated § 3553(a) parties, must the assess advisory factors, and whether Guidelines analyzed sufficiently the any district range, arguments explained the court properly considered presented selected by the the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must 2 accompany every sentence. ). When a district court imposes a sentence outside of the applicable Guidelines range, we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 United (4th Cir. 2007). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the district counsel s court properly arguments regarding heard, considered, § 3553(a)(6). and The weighed court also considered the other § 3553(a) factors, as well as the advisory Guidelines range, and clearly stated the basis for its decision to impose a three-month upward variance. no procedural court. legal before error and affirm the Accordingly, we find judgment of the district 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 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.
