Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Junior ROJAS, also known as Ron John, also known as Ron Joe, also known as Pelon, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-20
Citations: 361 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 08-2380-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Junior ROJAS, also known as Ron John, also known as Ron Joe, also known as Pelon, Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Junior ROJAS, also known as Ron John, also known as Ron Joe, also known as Pelon, Appellant.
No. 08-2380-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 20, 2010.
Beth M. Farber, Esq., New York, NY, for Appellant.
Sarah Y. Lai, Katherine Polk Failla, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Junior Rojas pled guilty to one count of conspiring to deal drugs (cocaine) and one count of money laundering. 21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
The guideline range for Rojas's sentence was 168 to 210 months; Rojas asserts no procedural error. He argues only that his sentence of 108 months' incarceration (plus five years of supervised release) is substantively unreasonable.
Substantive reasonableness is reviewed under "a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (in banc).
The claim of substantive error is that the court failed to consider whether the powder cocaine sentence guidelines are improperly high and make a ruling on that point. As Rojas did not argue this below, he concedes that this review is conducted under a plain error standard.
Even if his claim were properly preserved, there is no basis in law for requiring district courts to explicitly consider whether to reject the applicable guideline range as a policy matter before sentencing a defendant. The Supreme Court has allowed district courts to sentence below a guideline range due to a policy disagreement; but it has never required them to first affirmatively state whether or not they disagree with sentencing guidelines as a policy matter. See Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 108, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Further, simply because a district court does not mention a relevant consideration does not mean it failed to give it consideration. See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006).
Finding no merit in the defendant's arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.