Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04395/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linaldo Martinez Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LINALDO MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Linaldo Martinez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00022-REP-1)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, Laura Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David 

Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Heather Hart Mansfield, Richmond, Virginia,

Daniel Taylor Young, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4395 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Linaldo Martinez Hernandez pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to illegal reentry 

after deportation or removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). The district court 

sentenced Hernandez to six months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On 

appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness 

of Hernandez’s sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Hernandez has not filed 

a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. 

We review Hernandez’s sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bolton, 

858 F.3d 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). First, 

we “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . 

improperly calculating[] the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2018)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there is no procedural error, we then must also consider 

the substantive reasonableness of Hernandez’s sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the 

circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that 

the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. GomezJimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also 

United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “we are required 

to analyze procedural reasonableness before turning to substantive reasonableness”). A 

sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to accomplish the § 3553(a) 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4395 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

sentencing goals. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly 

calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that 

the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. 

Here, the court correctly calculated Hernandez’s advisory Guidelines range, heard 

argument from counsel, provided Hernandez an opportunity to allocute, and considered the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because Hernandez has not demonstrated that his term of 

imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has 

failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. 

Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306. We conclude that Hernandez’s sentence is both procedurally 

and substantively reasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In accordance with 

Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Hernandez, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hernandez requests 

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hernandez. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4395 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 3 of 3