gno.law

United States v. Jorge Perez-Diaz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50229 · 2017-04-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge PEREZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2017

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50229 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03064-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* JORGE PEREZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

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

Jorge Perez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month custodial sentence and ten-month term of supervised release imposed upon 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). Perez-Diaz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his mitigating argument that his underlying deportation order may have been erroneous. 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.

The record reflects that the district court properly considered Perez-Diaz’s arguments and explained sufficiently its determination that an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of his significant criminal and immigration history.

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007).

Perez-Diaz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Diaz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50229

Cites, in this corpus