United States v. Lucio Mora-Tarula
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio MORA-TARULA, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2011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. 10-50108 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00174-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * LUCIO MORA-TARULA, 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.
Lucio Mora-Tarula appeals from the 72-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). Mora-Tarula argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to explain the sentence adequately and failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008), and affirm because Mora-Tarula has not established plain error by the district court, much less that his substantial rights may have been affected, see id. at 761-62.
Mora-Tarula also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50108