United States v. Bernardo Martinez-Ocampo
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo MARTINEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Gordon Thompson (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Smith, Ferdinand F. Fernandez
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2011
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. 10-50104 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03412-GT v. MEMORANDUM * BERNARDO MARTINEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Martinez-Ocampo appeals from the 57-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-Ocampo contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his low-end Guideline sentence and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50104