UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARMANDO TAPIA-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Hector Miguel Tapia-Martinez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00313-H-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2014 Decided: November 19, 2014

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Robert E. Waters, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Armando Tapia-Martinez appeals his thirty-six-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry of 

an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) 

(2012). On appeal, he challenges the substantive reasonableness 

of his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review sentences for reasonableness “under a 

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

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When reviewing for substantive 

reasonableness, the district court “tak[es] into account the 

totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. If the sentence is 

within or below the properly calculated Guidelines range, we

apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th 

Cir. 2013). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the 

defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors.” United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Tapia-Martinez argues that, “[c]onsidering [his] 

background, the fact that he returned to the United States only 

to regain custody of his autistic son and the fact that he 

intended to immediately return to Mexico once custody and travel 

arrangements for his son could be arranged,” the thirty-six-
3

month sentence imposed by the district court was greater than 

necessary to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 

(Appellant’s Br. at 7). He claims that, over the past seven 

years, he has “demonstrated his willingness to obey the law and 

remain outside the United States and a personal commitment to 

his children and family. It was not until these two principles 

came into conflict that [he] returned to the United States.” 

(Id. at 10). 

Notably, Tapia-Martinez does not challenge the 

procedural reasonableness of his sentence or argue that the 

district court failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence. 

Although the district court’s explanation was brief, it noted 

the need for “deterrence and protection” in Tapia-Martinez’ case 

(J.A. 38), and gave Tapia-Martinez an opportunity to present his

mitigating factors at sentencing. Tapia-Martinez was given the 

within-Guidelines sentence that he requested, and his argument 

is essentially just a disagreement with the district court’s 

weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and ultimate decision to 

sentence him at the high end of the Guidelines range. Because 

Tapia-Martinez has failed to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness, we conclude that his sentence is substantively 

reasonable.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED