gno.law

United States v. Mario Sotelo-Ayala

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50570 · 2016-01-28 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario SOTELO-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Jacqueline H. Nguyen

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50570 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00155-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO SOTELO-AYALA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2016** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Mario Sotelo-Ayala appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, 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). Sotelo-Ayala asserts that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to deviate from the Guidelines based on policy disagreements. We disagree. The record reflects that the court considered Sotelo-Ayala’s Kimbrough argument, and that it was aware of its discretion to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 753 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]hat the court imposed a below Guidelines sentence demonstrates that it was well aware of its ability to do so under Supreme Court precedent.”).

Sotelo-Ayala next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and by failing to explain adequately its sentencing decision. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2008), we find no error. The record demonstrates that the district court considered and addressed Sotelo-Ayala’s arguments for leniency, and the court’s explanation of the sentence was adequate. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50570

Cites, in this corpus