UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SALOMON PASILLAS ARIAS, a/k/a Mon Pacheco Ruis, a/k/a 

Salomon Pasillas-Arias, a/k/a Javier Dela-Cruz, a/k/a 

Salomon Pasillas,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00401-CCE-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. 

Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth 

Choi, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Salomon Pasillas Arias, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one 

count of illegal reentry of a deported alien after being 

convicted of a felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), 

(b)(1) (2006). The court imposed a departure or variance 

sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Pasillas Arias 

appeals, contending that the sentence was unreasonable. We 

affirm.

This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district 

court for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 

95, 100 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 274 (2012) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). The first step in our 

review requires us to ensure that the district court did not 

commit significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the guidelines range, failing to consider the 

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

adequately explain the sentence. United States v. Carter, 564 

F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We then review the sentence for 

substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of 

the circumstances. See United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 

292, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
3

Pasillas Arias contends that the court erred 

procedurally in departing upward based on an inadequate criminal 

history category because the court failed to use the 

step-by-step approach set forth in United States v. Rusher, 966 

F.2d 868 (4th Cir. 1992), and jumped directly from a category 

III to category V. However, a sentencing court is under no 

obligation to “incant the specific language used in the 

guidelines, or go through a ritualistic exercise in which it 

mechanically discusses each criminal history category or offense 

level it rejects en route to the category or offense level that 

it selects.” Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d at 104 (quoting United 

States v. Dalton, 477 F.3d 195, 199 (4th Cir. 2007)). Further, 

even if the sentencing court “failed to utilize a proper 

incremental analysis, any procedural error would be harmless 

because the upward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors 

justified the sentence imposed.” Id. at 104.

Here the court expressly found that even if the 

departure was not procedurally sound, the court “would still 

vary upward to the same effect because of the deportations, the 

repeated breaking of the law and the need to protect the public 

from future crime.” (J.A. 65). We have held that a “resulting 

sentence is procedurally reasonable [if] the district court 

adequately explained its sentence on alternative grounds 

supporting a variance sentence, by reference to 18 U.S.C. 
4

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 804 (4th 

Cir. 2009). 

Here, the district court found that Pasillas Arias’ 

criminal history category was substantially underrepresented and 

that category V was more appropriate, taking into account his 

two prior deportations, his felony death by motor vehicle 

conviction after repeated speeding and traffic offenses, and 

numerous uncounted misdemeanors and infractions. Because the 

district court made an alternative finding that a variance 

sentence under § 3553(a) was appropriate, after specifically 

considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the 

prior deportations, the repeated breaking of the law and the 

need to protect the public from future crime, we find that the 

sentence was procedurally reasonable.

Pasillas Arias next argues that his sentence, which 

was eight months above the high end of the advisory guidelines 

range, was substantively unreasonable given the mitigating 

factors present in his case. A sentencing court must “impose a 

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply 

with the purposes set forth in [§ 3553(a)(2)].” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). “Even if we would have reached a different 

sentencing result on our own, this fact alone is insufficient to 

justify reversal of the district court.” United States v. 
5

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 474 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

The district court considered arguments from the 

parties addressing both mitigating and aggravating 

circumstances, and specifically noted Pasillas Arias’ repeated 

deportations, repeated violations of the law, and the need to 

protect the public. The court observed that the many 

misdemeanors and infractions were not accounted for in Pasillas 

Arias’ original sentence calculation, and that the list of 

traffic violations eventually led to a conviction of felony 

death by motor vehicle involving alcohol. The court emphasized 

the need to protect the public from future criminal activity. 

As such, we find that the court sufficiently referenced the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and conclude that the resulting sentence was 

substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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