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). If the
court finds “no significant procedural error,” it next assesses
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking “‘into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v.
Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346-47 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 307 (2010).
In his sole argument pertaining to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence,
Mendoza-Mendoza argues the
district court erred in its analysis of the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. Specifically, Mendoza-Mendoza asserts the district
court should have afforded more mitigatory weight to the fact
that he has maintained a long-term relationship with the victim
of his prior criminal conduct, Heather Rowe.
The record establishes that the district court
considered the relationship between Mendoza-Mendoza and Rowe in
rendering its sentencing decision, but ultimately determined it
was an insufficient basis for sentencing Mendoza-Mendoza below
his properly calculated Guidelines range. At its core, Mendoza-
Mendoza-Mendoza does not contest the calculation of his
advisory Guidelines range.