UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EULISES TAPIA PEREZ

We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In considering the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence, we “take into account the totality of the circumstances.” 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. § 3553(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 within-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 the law, and the need to specifically deter similar

conduct. In considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court weighed the mitigating

3



circumstances in Tapia’s case, including Tapia’s lack of a criminal history, financial

problems, and emerging drug addiction, against the aggravating circumstances, including

the amount of drugs attributable to Tapia and Tapia’s negotiation of the drug transaction.

After weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court reasonably concluded that a within

Guidelines-range sentence was more appropriate than 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 sentencing discretion. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 290 (4th Cir.

2012); United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).

Because Tapia has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded to his within-Guidelines-range sentence, 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