United States v. Pablo Alvarez-Jimenez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50552 · 2017-04-19 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo ALVAREZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: William Q. Hayes (district judge)
Outcome: dismissed — DISMISSED.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gould (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50552 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01694-WQH v. MEMORANDUM* PABLO ALVAREZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Alvarez-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Alvarez-Jimenez challenges the 16-level enhancement that the * 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). district court imposed on the basis of his 2013 aggravated assault conviction.

This sentencing appeal is moot because Alvarez-Jimenez has fully served his custodial sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

2 15-50552