UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4877

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JORGE LUCAS SANTIAGO RIVERA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00009-1)

Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. 

Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, John L. File, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jorge Lucas Santiago Rivera appeals his seventy-sevenmonth prison sentence for one count of assault with a dangerous 

weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006). On appeal, 

Rivera contends that his term of imprisonment is substantively 

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the 

purposes of sentencing. We affirm.

We review a sentence imposed by a district court under 

a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review 

requires us to inspect for procedural reasonableness by ensuring 

that the district court committed no significant procedural 

errors, such as improperly calculating the guideline range, 

failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or 

failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. 

Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). We then 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, 

taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a 

properly-calculated guideline range is reasonable. United 

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

In the district court, Rivera did not object to the 

court’s calculation of his guideline range or that he qualified 

as a career offender as defined in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 
3

Manual § 4B1.1 (2009). Instead, Rivera argued before the 

district court and now on appeal that his designation as a 

career offender overstated the significance of his prior crimes. 

According to Rivera, the district court should have sentenced 

him to a lesser term of imprisonment than that recommended by 

the Guidelines because he is not the sort of recidivist that the 

career offender classification was designed to target. Rivera 

did not, however, move the district court for a downward 

departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b), but rather argued that the 

court should exercise its discretion to impose a variance 

sentence.

The district court pointed to numerous reasons 

underlying its imposition of Rivera’s sentence, focusing 

specifically on Rivera’s repeated attempts to pursue and stab 

the victim during the assault as well as his difficulty with 

avoiding criminal behavior. Given the district court’s 

discretion in sentencing, we conclude that the sentence is 

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

We therefore 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