US v. Fidel Rodriguez, No. 14-4310 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4310 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FIDEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4317 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. YIDA PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00157-REP-1; 3:13-cr-00157-REP-2) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. January 6, 2015 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia; Samuel P. Simpson, V, SAMUEL P. SIMPSON, V, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Samuel E. Fishel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Following Fidel Rodriguez production of a and trial, Yida child § 2251(a) (2012). bench Perez the pornography, guilty in district of court four violation of found counts 18 of U.S.C. The court sentenced the Appellants to the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months of imprisonment and they now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The Appellants first challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. 209, 216 (4th sufficiency of Cir. the United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 2006). evidence A faces defendant a heavy challenging burden. the United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The verdict must be sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Smith, 451 F.3d at 216. Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” quotation marks omitted). Id. (internal “Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” thoroughly Id. (internal reviewed the quotation record 3 marks and omitted). the We relevant have legal authorities and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts of guilt. The Appellants also challenge the district court’s rejection of their challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence as grossly disproportionate circumstances. “We to de review the offenses novo based on constitutional the claims, including whether a sentence is proportional under the Eighth Amendment.” United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Myers, 280 F.3d 407, 416 (4th Cir. 2002)). disproportionate to In an determining offense, and whether thus a cruel sentence and is unusual, courts consider objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and harshness of the penalty, the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and the sentences imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions. Dowell, 771 F.3d at 167. “In the context of an as-applied challenge, the [Supreme] Court has explained that the narrow proportionality principle of proportionality the Eighth between that Amendment crime are and does not sentence, grossly require but strict forbids disproportionate to only extreme sentences the crime.” United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 575 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 229 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, in a challenge to a sentence of a term of 4 years, an extensive proportionality analysis is not required and challenges to “lesser sentences that are clearly within the prerogative of Congress and subject to imposition by a district court may be disposed of swiftly.” quotation marks omitted). Id. at 578-79 (internal We conclude that the district court correctly determined that the mandatory minimum sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offenses. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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 5
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.
