United States of America v. Jose Alfonso Rodriguez-Garcia, a/k/a Jose Cortez-Martin, a/k/a Jose Garcia, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, a/k/a Jose Cortez-Martin, a/k/a Jose
Garcia, a/k/a Oscar Rolando Ramirez-Perez, a/k/a Abel Vasquez-Teaz, a/k/a Jose
Heriberto Garcia-Rodriguez, a/k/a Jose Heriberto Rodriguez-Garcia, a/k/a Jose
Edilberto Rodriguez-Garcia, a/k/a Jose Rodriguez-Garcia, a/k/a Jose Edilberto
Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:17-cr-00147-BR-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2019 Decided: May 9, 2019
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel W. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alfonso Rodriguez-Garcia appeals his 115-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to illegal reentry of an alien who was removed subsequent to a conviction
for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). The district
court granted the Government’s motion to upwardly depart pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a) (2015) and sentenced him above his advisory Guidelines
range of 30 to 37 months. On appeal, he does not challenge the district court’s decision
to upwardly depart or the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, but he challenges the
extent of the departure and argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
“As a general matter, in reviewing any sentence whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range, we review for an abuse of discretion.” United
States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider its substantive
reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. If a sentence is outside the
Guidelines range, we “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision.” Id. “[A] major departure should be supported
by a more significant justification than a minor one.” Id. at 50. “In reviewing a departure
from the advisory Guidelines range, we ‘defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence

-- 3 of 4 --

4
only if it is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been [our] choice.’”
United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Rodriguez-Garcia, and his sentence is substantively reasonable.
Rodriguez-Garcia has been previously removed from the United States ten times, and he
has a lengthy criminal history that includes prior convictions for illegal reentry and other
serious offenses. In determining the extent of the departure, the district court followed
the procedure in USSG § 4A1.3(a)(4) and reasonably determined that a Guidelines range
of 92 to 115 months, and a sentence at the high end of 115 months, were appropriate for
this case. The district court’s stated reasoning for its departure was adequate, and based
on a totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the extent of the departure and the
sentence imposed were reasonable. We therefore defer to the district court’s decision.
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --