gno.law

United States v. Josue De Paz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50393 · 2010-06-10 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue Daniel DE PAZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Thomas J. Whelan (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Fletcher

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2010

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. 09-50393 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03235-TJW v. MEMORANDUM * JOSUE DANIEL DE PAZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Josue Daniel De Paz appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in * 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). violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

De Paz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) imposing a sentence based solely on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and (2) failing to adequately explain his sentence. The record reflects that the district court provided a reasoned sentencing explanation and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).

De Paz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his over-represented criminal history and other mitigating circumstances. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, De Paz’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50393

Cites, in this corpus