**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published per curia m 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 Ap pellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gerardo Rodriguez appeals from his 168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 quanti ty 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 in dividualized 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 asses sment 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 wi ll 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 milita ry 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
spec ifically 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