gno.law

United States v. Melecio Aldana-Ortiz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50276 · 2010-06-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melecio ALDANA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2010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. 09-50276 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-CR-01051-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * MELECIO ALDANA-ORTIZ, Defendant - Appellant.

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

Melecio Aldana-Ortiz appeals from the 68-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, 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.

Aldana-Ortiz contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1)

failing to respond to his non-frivolous argument that a sixteen-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, was sufficient to compensate for any underrepresentation in his criminal history score, and (2) focusing on the need for deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Aldana-Ortiz further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), because the sixteen-level enhancement was predicated on a “stale”

conviction. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at 1055-57.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50276

Cites, in this corpus