United States v. Miguel Trujillo-Rodriguez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- 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
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50259 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00564-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL ANGEL TRUJILLO- RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea * 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). 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.
Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments, but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50259