United States v. Anibal Diaz-rodriguez
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
- 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2010
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. 08-50391 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01001-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * ANIBAL DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2010 ** Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Anibal Diaz-Rodriguez appeals from the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United * 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). States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Diaz-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by focusing on the need for deterrence and failing to consider all the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Diaz-Rodriguez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the age of a prior conviction. The record indicates that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); cf. United States v. Amezcua- Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It is unreasonable . . . to treat a decades-old enhancing conviction as requiring as much deterrence as a recent conviction.”) (emphasis added).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
2 08-50391 AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
3 08-50391