United States v. Martin Martinez-Alavarez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MARTINEZ-ALAVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- John A. Houston (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Carlos T. Bea, Richard C. Tallman
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010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. 09-50554 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01598-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * MARTIN MARTINEZ-ALAVAREZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Martin Martinez-Alavarez appeals from the 60-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). Martinez-Alavarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence and by failing to address Martinez-Alavarez’s request for a downward departure. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err, and the below-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50554