gno.law

United States v. Arnulfo Gonzalez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50385 · 2015-02-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo Arellano GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Edward Leavy

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50385 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01608-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* ARNULFO ARELLANO GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Arnulfo Arellano Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-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.

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). Arellano Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by improperly relying on a prior sentence imposed for the same offense as a benchmark for the instant case. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the applicable section 3553(a) factors, including Arellano Gonzalez’s criminal and immigration history.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the district court’s consideration of Arellano Gonzalez’s prior sentence for the same offense was not improper. See United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50385

Cites, in this corpus