United States v. Hector Sanchez-Camacho
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector SANCHEZ-CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010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. 09-50108 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03533-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * HECTOR SANCHEZ-CAMACHO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Hector Sanchez-Camacho appeals from the 48-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).
NC/Research States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez-Camacho contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousness of his criminal history, and because the 16-level enhancement that was imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(a) was triggered by a relatively minor and stale narcotics conviction.
The record reflects that the district court properly considered Sanchez-Camacho’s individual circumstances and the required factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence below the guidelines range is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 877 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
NC/Research 2 09-50108