UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
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 
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