United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1847

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jose Martinez-Rodriguez

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: November 10, 2014

Filed: November 19, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court sentenced Jose Martinez-Rodriguez to 48 months' 1

imprisonment following his guilty plea to the offense of unlawful reentry by an alien

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.
previously removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of

8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Martinez-Rodriguez challenges the substantive

reasonableness of his within-guidelines-range sentence. We affirm.

"When we review the imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the

Guidelines range,we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United States

v. Hayes, 518 F.3d 989, 995 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). We "must

first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error." Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). "In the absence of procedural error below, we

should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under

an abuse-of-discretion standard." United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). "If the sentence is within the Guidelines

range, [we may] apply a presumption of reasonableness." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Indeed, "it will be the unusual case" when we reverse a within-guidelines sentence

"as substantively unreasonable." Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted). "A

sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court fails to consider a relevant

factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits

a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Lozoya, 623

F.3d 624, 626 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). 

Martinez-Rodriguez alleges no procedural error; nor does he challenge the

district court's calculation resulting in an advisory guidelines imprisonment range of

46 to 57 months. Instead, his sole argument on appeal is that, given the specific

circumstances of his case, his sentence is greater than necessary to serve the federal

sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In arguing that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable, Martinez-Rodriguez concedes that the district court

considered all of the § 3553(a) factors that are relevant to his case. He contends,

however, that the district court committed "a serious error in judgment" when it

-2-
weighed the § 3553(a) factors because it afforded too little weight to his strong family

ties to the United States. 

2

After carefully reviewing the sentencing record, we hold that the district court

did not make a clear error of judgment when it weighed the § 3553(a) factors. The

record indicates that the district court permitted Martinez-Rodriguez to offer

extensive argument as to why his family circumstances warranted him a variance

below the Guidelines range. The district concluded, however, that MartinezRodriguez's history of violent criminal behavior, which includes convictions for

firing a weapon at an occupied vehicle and strangling a former girlfriend, indicated

that he presented a significant risk to the public safety and that he had little regard for

the laws of the United States. After weighing these various considerations in

conjunction with the remaining § 3553(a) factors, the district court concluded that a

sentence within the heartland of the Guidelines was appropriate.

It is clear that the district court'sjustificationsfor imposing a within-guidelines

sentence rested "on precisely the kind of defendant-specific determinations that are

within the special competence of sentencing courts." Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 

(quotation omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing Martinez-Rodriguez to 48 months' imprisonment, and we thus affirm its

judgment.

______________________________

Martinez-Rodriguez also claims that the district court did not give due weight 2

to his partial compliance with a fast-track program that the United States Attorney's

Office for the District of Nebraska offers to many defendants in illegal reentry cases. 

However, as the district court noted, Martinez-Rodriguez was offered the chance to

enter into a plea agreement as part of this program, but he refused. MartinezRodriguez's argument is therefore meritless, and we give it no further consideration.

-3-