United States v. Ponciano Diaz-Sosa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50124 · 2014-01-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ponciano DIAZ-SOSA, A.K.A. Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Richard A. Paez, Barry G. Silverman

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50124 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04099-IEG v. MEMORANDUM* PONCIANO DIAZ-SOSA, a.k.a. Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 21, 2014** Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release.

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). Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard Diaz-Sosa’s mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50124