United States of America v. Margarito Martinez-Hernandez, a/k/a Carlanga

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4528
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARGARITO MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Carlanga,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00006-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 7, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, C.
Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Margarito Martinez-Hernandez appeals from his 54-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry
by a felon. He claims on appeal that his sentence, which was
within the Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
Martinez-Hernandez contends that his sentence is
unreasonably long given his criminal history and the fact that
the fast track program is not available in the Western District
of Virginia. Substantive reasonableness is determined by
considering the totality of the circumstances. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). We presume
that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). This presumption
can only be rebutted if the defendant can demonstrate that the
sentence was unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
We find that Martinez-Hernandez has failed to rebut the
presumed substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The
district court assessed the totality of the circumstances,
including the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and explicitly
considered and rejected counsel’s arguments for a downward

-- 2 of 3 --

3
variance. In rejecting this request, the court considered
Martinez-Hernandez’s criminal history, his rapid reentry into
the United States, and the need for deterrence. In addition, we
have rejected Martinez-Hernandez’s fast track argument. See
United States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 243 (4th Cir. 2006)
(determining that the lack of fast track programs in some
districts, and the availability in others, did not cause an
unwarranted sentencing disparity that would justify a variance
from an advisory Guidelines range). In any event, the district
court considered whether such a variance was warranted in this
case and determined that it was not.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --