United States v. Julio Garcia-Equihua
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio GARCIA-EQUIHUA, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Jeffrey T. Miller (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2011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. 09-50453 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01238-JM v. MEMORANDUM * JULIO GARCIA-EQUIHUA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julio Garcia-Equihua appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, 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). Garcia-Equihua contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Garcia-Equihua also contends that under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), the district court erred by not explaining the reason for imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which Garcia-Equihua believes is empirically unsound. The policy behind the enhancement is sound. See United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2001). As there is no separate obligation under Kimbrough for the district court to explain why it is imposing a valid enhancement, the district court’s explanation was sufficient. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992 (“[T]he district court must explain [the sentence]
sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review.”).
Finally, Garcia-Equihua contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50453