United States v. Martin Hernandez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Vasquez HERNANDEZ, 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
- Atsushi W. Tashima (author), Marsha S. Berzon, Richard R. Clifton
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2010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. 09-50627 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02508-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * MARTIN VASQUEZ HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Martin Vasquez Hernandez 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). Vasquez Hernandez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing when considered in light of the mitigating factors that he presented. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Vasquez Hernandez’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1116 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50627