gno.law

United States v. Victor Vega-Soto

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50271 · 2013-10-03 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor VEGA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Johnnie B. Rawlinson (author), Smith, Morgan Christen

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50271 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00304-MMA v. MEMORANDUM * VICTOR VEGA-SOTO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Victor Vega-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Vega-Soto contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his non-frivolous arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. Because Vega-Soto did not raise this procedural objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010). The district court entertained Vega-Soto’s mitigating arguments regarding the application of the Guidelines, as reflected in its decision to depart downward five levels, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1941 (2012).

Vega-Soto contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), but acknowledges that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), remains binding precedent. See United States v. Estrada- Eliverio, 583 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50271

Cites, in this corpus