Alfredo Ramirez-Esquivel v. United States
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo RAMIREZ-ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Richard R. Clifton, Edward Leavy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50118 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03659-JAH v. MEMORANDUM* ALFREDO RAMIREZ-ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Ramirez-Esquivel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of supervised release. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Ramirez-Esquivel contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence without explaining why a within- Guidelines sentence was insufficient or acknowledging that the sentence exceeded the Guidelines range. He also argues that the court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments that his anxiety prevented him from complying with his supervised release conditions and that a short sentence was warranted so that he could accept a job promotion that had been offered to him. Ramirez-Esquivel’s arguments are without merit. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range as 3-9 months, but explained that a 12-month sentence was warranted, despite the mitigating arguments asserted by Ramirez-Esquivel, in light of the severity of Ramirez-Esquivel’s breach of the court’s trust. The court adequately responded to Ramirez-Esquivel’s mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the above-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50118