UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4914

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS HERIBERTO MENDEZ-REYES, a/k/a Chrstian Torres, a/k/a 

Luis N. Reyes, a/k/a Luis H. Reyes, a/k/a Luis Mendez, a/k/a 

Luis Reyes, a/k/a Christian Torres, a/k/a Joaquin Andrades 

Mendes, a/k/a Luis Torres,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00090-CMH-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2011 Decided: May 27, 2011

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Geremy Kamens, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research 

and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Kondi J. Kleinman, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Heriberto Mendez-Reyes, a citizen of El Salvador, 

pled guilty without a plea agreement to illegally reentering the 

United States subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated 

felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b) (2006), and was 

sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-six months 

in prison. Mendez-Reyes claims on appeal that his sentence is 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately 

explain the reasons behind the chosen sentence and failed to 

address his argument for a downward variance. Finding no error, 

we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; 

see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). A 

sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range 

is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). 

In determining the procedural reasonableness of a 

sentence, we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006), factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the 
3

parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Regardless of whether the district court 

imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must 

place on the record an individualized assessment based on the 

particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Where, as here, the district court imposes a 

within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation may be “less 

extensive, while still individualized.” United States v. 

Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. 

Ct. 2128 (2010). However, that explanation must be sufficient 

to allow for “meaningful appellate review” such that the 

appellate court need “not guess at the district court’s 

rationale.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The district court is not required to 

“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United 

States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). With 

regard to a sentence within the Guidelines range, “[g]enerally, 

an adequate explanation . . . is provided when the district 

court indicates that it is “rest[ing] [its] decision upon the 

Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a 

proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional 

mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that 

the case before him is typical.” United States v. Hernandez, 
4

603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007)).

Mendez-Reyes does not dispute that the district court 

properly calculated his Guidelines range under the advisory 

Guidelines. Rather, he argues that the district court failed to 

explain its reasons for the particular sentence it imposed and 

failed to address his primary argument for a downward variance 

sentence — the unwarranted sentencing disparity between the

“fast-track” districts and “non-fast-track” districts (including 

the Eastern District of Virginia). 

We have reviewed the transcript of Mendez-Reyes’ 

sentencing hearing and find that the district court adequately 

explained the within-Guidelines sentence chosen for MendezReyes. Nor is Mendez-Reyes’ sentence unreasonable because the 

district court failed to address his argument regarding the 

sentencing disparity between “fast-track” and “non-fast-track” 

districts. First, Mendez-Reyes would not qualify for the fasttrack program, even if one existed in the Eastern District of 

Virginia, because he did not enter into a plea agreement and 

waive his rights to file pretrial motions, to appeal, and to 

challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United

States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 2006). 

Moreover, this court has found that disparities between fast-
5

track and non-fast-track sentences are not “unwarranted” 

sentencing disparities. Id. at 244. 

Accordingly, 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED