Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04826/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Angel Najera-Fraire
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4826

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL NAJERA-FRAIRE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:07-cr-00167-HEH)

Submitted: January 15, 2008 Decided: January 29, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, S. David

Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4826 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Angel Najera-Fraire appeals his sentence for

reentering the country illegally after deportation, subsequent to

a conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) (2000). Najera-Fraire received a sentence of

ninety-six months’ incarceration for his crime.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing.

After calculating the appropriate advisory guidelines range, a

district court should consider the resulting range in conjunction

with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and

determine an appropriate sentence. United States v. Davenport, 445

F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). 

A sentence is valid if it “is within the statutorily

prescribed range and is reasonable.” United States v. Moreland,

437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).

A sentence that falls within the properly calculated advisory

guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see

also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007)

(upholding application of presumption of reasonableness to

sentences within the guidelines). 

Najera-Fraire’s sentence is presumptively reasonable

because it fell within the advisory guidelines range, which ranged

Appeal: 07-4826 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

from 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment. This presumption can only be

rebutted by showing the sentence is unreasonable when measured

against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044

(2007). 

In imposing the sentence of ninety-six months, the

district court stated:

Well I have considered the United States sentencing

guidelines as advisory only, and I have reviewed all the

factors set forth in 18, United States Code, Section

3553(a). Of particular pertinence to this case is

deterrence, respect for the law, and protection of the

community. 

With respect to that analysis, there is a motion

before the Court for a downward variance. This Court has

considered the testimony of Ms. Kline [Najera-Fraire’s

girlfriend]. And I do consider it to be significant that

he has a good work record and that he supports his

punitive family. However, on the other side of the

ledger, this is an individual who has continually

violated the law since the moment he set foot on U.S.

soil. He has 23 convictions for various offenses. He

has 2 burglary convictions; he has 4 DWI’s; he has

obstruction of justice; hit and run; filing a false

police report; and a whole host of driving on suspended

or no operator’s license.

I do not believe that anything short of a

significant period of incarceration will deter him from

reentering the United States or promote respect for the

law. 

 Najera-Fraire reentered the country twice after being

deported. His crime carries a maximum penalty of twenty years.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He received twenty-six different

convictions between 1994 and 2006. While the majority of those

Appeal: 07-4826 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
- 4 -

convictions were for traffic violations, such as driving while

intoxicated, driving with a suspended license, and failure to obey

a highway sign, other convictions included failure to appear,

theft, filing a false police report, obstructing justice, and

burglary. This record of chronic recidivism demonstrated a lack of

respect for United States law. The district court’s sentence, at

the high end of the applicable advisory guidelines range, is not

unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the need to

deter Najera-Fraire in the future. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at

379 (upholding the defendant’s sentence under comparable

circumstances). 

Najera-Fraire argues his sentence was unreasonable

because the district court failed to consider the remoteness of his

felony conviction and his last deportation, his strong ties to the

United States, and the effect of his alien status when classified

by the Bureau of Prisons. While a district court must consider the

various § 3553(a) factors and explain its sentence, it need not

explicitly reference § 3553 or discuss every factor on the record,

particularly when the court imposes a sentence within the

guidelines range. Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. “[W]hen a judge

decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing

so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita, 127 S.

Ct. at 2468. The factors raised by Najera-Fraire do not

necessarily outweigh the seriousness of his offense, his

Appeal: 07-4826 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

recidivism, and long criminal record, and thus do not show that the

sentence he received was unreasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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

Appeal: 07-4826 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/29/2008 Pg: 5 of 5