US v. Agustin Jeronimo-Rodas, No. 14-4157 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AGUSTIN JERONIMO-RODAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00841-RBH-1) Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Agustin Jeronimo-Rodas pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). court imposed a sentence supervised release. of time served and one The year of On appeal, Jeronimo-Rodas contends that the district court erred by imposing a one-year term of supervised release when he likely will be deported. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness, standard. applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion United States v. Rivera Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2012). The first step in our review requires us to ensure district that the court did not commit significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Cir. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th 2009). We then review sentence account the for substantive reasonableness, taking circumstances. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). into the totality of the Jeronimo-Rodas only alleges procedural error. Jeronimo-Rodas argues that the district court erred by imposing supervised release because he would likely be deported. 2 The Sentencing Guidelines normally counsel against imposing a term of supervised release for someone who is a deportable alien, noting that the court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release. ( USSG ) § 5D1.1(c) (2013). to consider imposing a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Nonetheless, courts are encouraged term of supervised release on a deportable alien if the court determines that such an imposition would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See USSG § 5D1.1 comment. (n.5). Here, deterrence into this the given court sought Jeronimo-Rodas country and his an added repeated convictions for influence and possession of cocaine base. stated that placement on supervised measure illegal driving further protection to the public. circumstances, imposition supervised conclude release § 5D1.1(c). was that the not under reversible the The court will (J.A. 75). we reentries (J.A. 75). release of provide Under these of error a term under of USSG See United States v. Dominquez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2012) (observing that the word ordinarily in this provision is an encouragement, not a mandatory requirement). Accordingly, we affirm Jeronimo-Rodas sentence. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We 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.