United States v. Daniel Carreon-Ortiz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50532 · 2015-05-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel CARREON-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Edward Leavy (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2015

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50532 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02521-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL CARREON-ORTIZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Carreon-Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-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). Carreon-Ortiz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court (i) granted a two-level rather than a four-level fast-track departure, which resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity; and (ii)

considered him to be a danger to the public despite his success in battling alcoholism. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Carreon- Ortiz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the top 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 Carreon-Ortiz’s extensive immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50532