gno.law

United States v. Hector Rangel-Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-50068 · 2011-02-23 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector RANGEL-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Roger T. Benitez (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2011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. 10-50068 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02439-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * HECTOR RANGEL-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hector Rangel-Lopez 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.

* 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). Accordingly, the Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rangel-Lopez contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009). Amezcua-Vasquez is limited to the “specific set of facts presented”

in that case. Id. at 1058. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range in this case is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Rangel-Lopez also contends that the district court abused its discretion in selecting a sentence within the range dictated by the enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2 based on recidivism concerns. The district court properly considered the need for adequate deterrence in assessing whether a sentence within the enhanced Guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at 1055 (stating that reasonableness of sentence within the enhanced Guidelines range is to be determined in light of the section 3553(a) factors); United States v. Orozco- Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming a sentence within the enhanced Guidelines range, in light of the district court’s findings that the sentence was necessary to protect the public and to deter a subsequent reentry).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-50068

Cites, in this corpus