United States v. Guillermo Godinez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo GODINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Fletcher (author), Carlos T. Bea, Richard R. Clifton
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2011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. 10-50332 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01239-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * GUILLERMO GODINEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Godinez appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his 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). Godinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately its sentence and by failing to address nonfrivolous mitigating arguments. The contention is belied by the record. He further contends that his sentence reflects improper double counting of his criminal history. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
Godinez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009), because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior convictions and his individual circumstances. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is substantively reasonable.
See Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d. at 1058.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50332