United States v. Ricardo Solis-Morales
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo SOLIS-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Marilyn L. Huff (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Barry G. Silverman (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2010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. 09-50470 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01691-H v. MEMORANDUM * RICARDO SOLIS-MORALES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Solis-Morales appeals from the 77-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). Solis-Morales contends the district court failed to adequately consider each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including sentencing disparity, the family circumstances that caused him to reenter, and alleged prejudice caused by the delay in prosecution which he contends deprived him of a concurrent sentence. The record indicates that the district court adequately considered and addressed Solis- Morales’s arguments regarding sentencing disparities and his family, and its explanation of the sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). In addition, even if the district court erred by failing to address Solis-Morales’s argument for a variance based on the delay in prosecution, Solis-Morales has not met his burden of demonstrating that the alleged error affected his substantial rights and the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50470