United States of America v. Jesus Rivera-Nava, a/k/a Jesus Cordero, a/k/a Jesus Cordero-Nava

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS RIVERA-NAVA, a/k/a Jesus Cordero, a/k/a Jesus
Cordero-Nava,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief Judge. (1:07-cr-00166-JAB-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas R. Wilson, GREEN & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Jesus Rivera-Nava pled guilty to unauthorized reentry
of a removed alien whose removal was subsequent to an aggravated
felony conviction. The district court properly calculated
Rivera-Nava’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to be 57 to
71 months of imprisonment and sentenced him to 66 months in
prison. Rivera-Nava appeals, alleging his sentence is both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for an abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). To determine
whether a sentencing court abused its discretion, we undertake a
two-part analysis. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007). First, we examine the sentence for
“significant procedural errors,” and second, we evaluate the
substance of the sentence. Id. Significant procedural errors
include improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating
the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors, or failing to
adequately explain the given sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.
Substantive reasonableness entails a review of the totality of
the circumstances, and we may presume that a sentence within the
advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. Id.; see Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Here, the district court followed the necessary steps
in sentencing Rivera-Nava. The Guidelines range was properly
calculated, the court heard from both parties regarding the
Guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors, and the court noted
that it considered all the factors and concluded that the
Guidelines range provided an appropriate basis for determination
of sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
380 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that court need not “robotically
tick through” every subsection of § 3553(a)), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. 3044 (2007). In addition, we find no abuse of discretion
in the court’s decision to sentence Rivera-Nava in the middle of
the Guidelines range, especially when Rivera-Nava himself argued
for a sentence within the Guidelines range, noted that the
presentence report covered most of the statutory factors, and
did not move for a variance sentence.
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

-- 3 of 3 --