United States v. Fernando Silva-Lopez
- 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
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 3 2011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. 09-50510 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02866-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * FERNANDO SILVA-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Silva-Lopez appeals from the 55-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial 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). Silva-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigating arguments and for not articulating a rationale for its sentencing decision. The record reflects that the district court considered Silva- Lopez’s arguments in mitigation, 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). Moreover, the sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Silva-Lopez’s contention regarding the application of a 16-level enhancement for a prior conviction for a crime of violence is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50510