United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Aragon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50543 · 2016-06-21 · Unpublished

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

Area: other
Panel: Carlos T. Bea (author), Paul J. Watford, Michelle T. Friedland

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2016

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50543 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01657-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS RUIZ-ARAGON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Ruiz-Aragon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty- plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 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-Aragon contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on clearly erroneous facts and failing to explain adequately the three-year term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record shows that the district court adequately explained its determination that a term of supervised release was necessary as a deterrent in this particular case. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Ruiz- Aragon’s contention, the court did not presume that the government would not prosecute him were he to again return illegally, nor did it impose supervised release in this case based on a “blanket policy.”

Ruiz-Aragon next contends that the term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable, and that the court unreasonably exercised its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) when it expressed its disagreement with the Guidelines’ recommendation against supervised release for deportable aliens. In light of Ruiz-Aragon’s immigration and criminal history, the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release in this case was consistent with the Guidelines and was not an abuse of discretion. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt.

n.5.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50543