United States v. Arturo Toscano-Villasenor
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo TOSCANO-VILLASENOR, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- M. James Lorenz (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2011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. 10-50218 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03434-L v. MEMORANDUM * ARTURO TOSCANO-VILLASENOR, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Toscano-Villasenor appeals from the 57-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). Toscano-Villasenor contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or co-habitant, in violation of section 273.5 of the California Penal Code, does not qualify as a crime of violence.
This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2010).
Toscano-Villasenor further contends that the district court procedurally erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Toscano-Villasenor also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence that was greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50218