UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIO CESAR PORTILLO-SOSA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00176-REP-1)

Submitted: September 3, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard D.

Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Portillo-Sosa does not challenge the calculation of his

advisory Guidelines range. 

2

PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Portillo-Sosa pled guilty to unauthorized

reentry of a removed alien whose removal was subsequent to an

aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

(2006). The district court properly calculated Portillo-Sosa’s

advisory Guidelines range to be 57-71 months of imprisonment, and

sentenced him to 71 months’ imprisonment.*

 Portillo-Sosa appeals,

alleging his sentence is both procedurally and substantively

unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we

review a sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable, applying

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

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 594 (2007). A district court must

engage in a multi-step process at sentencing. First, the

sentencing court must calculate the appropriate Guidelines range by

making any necessary factual findings. Id. at 596. Then the court

should afford the parties “an opportunity to argue for whatever

sentence they deem appropriate.” Id. Next, it should consider the

resulting advisory sentencing range in conjunction with the factors

set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and

determine whether the § 3553(a) factors support the sentence

requested by either party. Id. Consideration of the factors in
3

§ 3553(a) does not require the sentencing court to “robotically

tick through” every subsection of § 3553(a). United States v.

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To determine whether a sentencing court abused its

discretion, we undertake a two-part analysis. United States v.

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). First, we examine the

sentence for “significant procedural errors,” and second, we

evaluate the substance of the sentence. Id. Significant

procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

explain the chosen sentence . . . .’” Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S.

Ct. at 597). “Substantive reasonableness review entails taking

into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the

extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). An appellate court may presume a

sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable. Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). 

Here, the district court followed the necessary steps in

sentencing Portillo-Sosa, and we find no abuse of discretion in its

decision to sentence him at the top of the Guidelines range.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
4

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