UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABEL CARLOS ANGELES-MORALES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00255-FL-1)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 5, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Abel Carlos Angeles-Morales pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). The district court sentenced Angeles-Morales to 21 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, Angeles-Morales argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address his arguments in support of a downward variance.

We review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard.” United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 86 (2019). “In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider, among other things, whether the court . . . sufficiently explained the selected sentence.” Id. “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Accordingly, the sentencing court must “address or consider all non- frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 206 (2019).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court sufficiently considered Angeles-Morales’ arguments for a downward variance and adequately explained its reasons for rejecting them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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