United States v. Jose Ibarra-Murietta

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50265, 12-50266 · 2013-08-20 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Silvino IBARRA-MURIETTA, AKA Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Silvino Ibarra-Murietta, AKA Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Susan Graber (author), Richard A. Paez, Kim M. Wardlaw

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50265 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01170-L-1 v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE SILVINO IBARRA-MURIETTA, aka Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda, Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50266 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02653-WQH-1 v. JOSE SILVINO IBARRA-MURIETTA, aka Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Submitted August 1, 2013 Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Silvino Ibarra-Murietta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault on a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111; and being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ibarra’s 87-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month sentence upon revocation of supervised release. See id. Contrary to Ibarra’s contention, the sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court properly considered Ibarra’s prior violent crimes in assessing the need to protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).