gno.law

United States v. Juan Rodriguez-Gonzalez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50205 · 2014-02-27 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ, A.K.A. Juan Flores Rodriguez, A.K.A. Juan Manuel Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Ferdinand F. Fernandez

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2014

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50205 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-04543-WQH v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Juan Flores Rodriguez, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Juan Rodriguez-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to vary downward from the Guideline range on policy grounds. The record reflects that the court considered Rodriguez-Gonzalez’s policy-based arguments and declined to exercise its discretion to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir. 2011).

Rodriguez-Gonzalez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because this is his first immigration conviction. He argues that the district court gave too much weight to his criminal history, which was already factored into the Guideline range, and did not give sufficient consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the fact that he had not previously spent more than a year in jail.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rodriguez-Gonzalez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 37-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Gonzalez’s criminal and immigration history. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50205

Cites, in this corpus