UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 4771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EULISES TAPIA PEREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr - 00151

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : June 19, 2018 Decided: June 28, 2018

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eulises Tapia Perez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). The district court imposed a sentence of 57 months’ impr isonment, which fell at the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range established by the district court . Tapia now appeals, contending that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of several mitigating factors he offered at his sentencing hear ing and that the district court should have imposed a downward

- variant
sentence. We affirm. We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse

- of

- discreti on standard.” Gall v. U nited
States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In considering the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, we “take into account the totality of the circumstan ces.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3 553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Tapia fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his wit hin

- Guidelines

- range sentence. In explaining Tapia’s sentence, the district court explicitly addressed several of the § 3553(a) factors, including Tapia’s history and characteristics, the seriousness of Tapia’s offense, the need to promote respect for th e law, and the need to speci fically deter similar conduct. In considering the § 3553(a) factors , the district court weighed the mitigating3 circumstances in Tapia’s case, including Tapia’s lack of a criminal history, financial problems, and emerging drug a ddiction, against the aggravating circumstances, including the amount of drugs attributable to Tapia and Tapia’s negoti ation of the drug transaction. After weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court reasonably concluded that a within

Guidelines

- ra nge sentence was more appropriate tha n a downward

- variant sentence. Although Tapia disagrees with the weight that the district court assigned to certain mitigating factors, his disagreement alone does not demonstrate that the district court abused its sen tencing discretion. See United States v. Susi , 674 F.3d 278, 290 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Jeffery , 63 1 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011). Because Tapia has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded to his within

- Guidelines

- range sentenc e, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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