United States v. Carlos Martinez-Aguiniga

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50014 · 2010-01-11 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos MARTINEZ-AGUINIGA, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010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. 09-50014 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-02444-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * CARLOS MARTINEZ-AGUINIGA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Martinez-Aguiniga appeals from the 57-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(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Aguiniga contends that the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively unreasonable in light of the factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), and because it is based on a 16-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) for a crime of violence he committed 23 years prior to his arrest in the instant case. The record reflects that the district court considered and rejected Martinez-Aguiniga’s arguments regarding the staleness of his crime of violence conviction and gave thorough consideration to the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. Cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

AFFIRMED.

NC/Research 2 09-50014