USCA4 Appeal: 23-4391 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4391

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SUSANA ROSALDO-CRUZ, a/k/a Sandra Martinez-Rodriguez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00348-WO-2)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4391 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Susana Rosaldo-Cruz pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The

district court imposed a sentence of 216 months’ imprisonment, below the advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Rosaldo-Cruz argues that the sentence is

procedurally and substantively unreasonable compared to the sentence of 144 months’

imprisonment that her codefendant received. We affirm.

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Torres-Reyes,

, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

“consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

[G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

sentence.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of “significant

procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account

the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States,

(2007).

We are satisfied that Rosaldo-Cruz’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The

district court properly calculated Rosaldo-Cruz’s Guidelines range, adequately considered

the § 3553(a) factors, providing a meaningful explanation for the sentence it chose, and

sufficiently addressed Rosaldo-Cruz’s arguments. See Gall,

. The court

also granted in part her request for a downward variance based on Rosaldo-Cruz’s limited

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4391 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

criminal history and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. Accordingly, we

discern no procedural error in Rosaldo-Cruz’s sentence.

We also conclude that Rosaldo-Cruz has failed to rebut the presumption of

substantive reasonableness afforded to her below-Guidelines sentence. While the court

found that Rosaldo-Cruz had a similar criminal background to her codefendant, it also

found that Rosaldo-Cruz was a substantial part of the drug conspiracy, was responsible for

a significantly larger drug weight than that for which she was held responsible, and had

made several attempts to minimize her role. The court accordingly found that a sentence

of 216 months’ imprisonment was sufficient but not greater than necessary given the

§ 3553(a) factors.

We therefore affirm the criminal 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

3