United States v. Raymond Salazar-agundes
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond SALAZAR-AGUNDES, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- William Q. Hayes (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010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. 09-50359 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04232-WQH MEMORANDUM * v.
RAYMOND SALAZAR-AGUNDES
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Salzar-Agundes appeals from the 40-month sentenced imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry of a deported alien, in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Salazar-Agundes contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court committed a procedural error in failing adequately to explain his 40- month sentence, which is below the Sentencing Guidelines range of 46-57 months.
This contention is belied by the record, which contains an adequate explanation.
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Salazar-Agundes also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2009). Salazar-Agundes contends that under this Court’s reasoning in Amezcua-Vasquez, his qualifying crime of violence conviction was too stale. Therefore, the district court should not have applied the 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(B)(1)(A)(ii). The record, however, reflects that the district court considered Salzar-Agundes’
argument in this regard and found that the facts in the instant case justified a sentence below the Guidelines range. The district court nevertheless found the facts insufficient to justify Salazar-Agundes’ request for a much lower sentence.
Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances, Salzar-Agundes’ sentence is substantively reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 53-60 (2007).
AFFIRMED.