UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Gerry,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00140-D-1)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerardo Rodriguez appeals from his 168-month sentence 

for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and a quantity of 

marijuana, and his concurrent sixty-month sentence for 

possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and 

aiding and abetting. The sole issue raised in Rodriguez’s brief 

is whether the trial court erred by failing to give him a 

greater variance in light of the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 

2000 & Supp. 2010) factors. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

First, we note that Rodriguez was sentenced within his 

properly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, rather 

than any variant sentence. We review sentences for 

reasonableness using a “deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard,” regardless of whether a sentence is inside or outside 

the prescribed Sentencing Guidelines range. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). There is an appellate 

presumption that a sentence falling within a correctly 

calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. Id. at 51; see Rita 

v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. 

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying such a 

presumption in the Fourth Circuit). We find that Rodriguez’s 

sentence was reasonable.
3

Although not raised as a separate issue in his brief, 

Rodriguez argues that the district court failed to adequately 

explain his sentence or otherwise provide individualized reasons 

for his sentence. A district court commits procedural error 

when it fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence. United 

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). While 

district judges must provide a particularized assessment as to 

why the sentence imposed is proper in each case, they need not 

“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.”

Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. Moreover, “when a judge decides 

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

will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita, 551 

U.S. at 356.

Here, Rodriguez argues that the district court failed 

to address all of his arguments for a lower sentence. Rodriguez 

claims that the district court only addressed his prior military 

service argument. This claim fails, however, as a review of the 

record reveals that the court specifically addressed Rodriguez’s 

family ties, whether he was remorseful for his crimes, and 

whether he had turned his life around. Moreover, the court 

specifically applied the § 3553(a) factors in determining his 

sentence. Thus, we find that the district court adequately 

addressed Rodriguez’s arguments and explained his sentence. 
4

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