United States v. Santos Tolentino-Avila
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos TOLENTINO-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Gordon Thompson (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2011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. 10-50421 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01736-GT v. MEMORANDUM * SANTOS TOLENTINO-AVILA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Santos Tolentino-Avila appeals from the 18-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). Tolentino-Avila contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address and consider his non-frivolous arguments in support of a lower sentence.
The record reflects that the district court considered Tolentino-Avila’s mitigating arguments regarding his personal history and future plans, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court provided an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50421