gno.law

United States v. Rafael Ruiz-Ruiz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50492 · 2015-12-15 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
William T. Wallace (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Johnnie B. Rawlinson

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50492 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01713-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* RAFAEL RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Ruiz-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-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). Ruiz-Ruiz first contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. Contrary to Ruiz-Ruiz’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors and not on a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures to a certain group of defendants. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183- 84 (9th Cir. 2015).

We likewise reject Ruiz-Ruiz’s argument that the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure was improper because it interfered with the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in plea bargaining. See id. at 1183.

Finally, Ruiz-Ruiz argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the court’s denial of the fast-track departure and its focus on the need for deterrence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ruiz-Ruiz’s immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50492

Cites, in this corpus