gno.law

United States v. Jose Yanez-Dominguez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50483 · 2017-10-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose YANEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Barry G. Silverman (author), Smith, Richard C. Tallman

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50483 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02317-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE YANEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose Yanez-Dominguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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.

* 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). Yanez-Dominguez contends that the district court improperly relied on his criminal history as a reason to deny the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and impose an above-Guidelines sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The court properly considered Yanez-Dominguez’s criminal and immigration history, including his two previous illegal reentry offenses for which he received lengthy sentences. See id. at 1184. Moreover, the 18-month sentence, two months above the high end of the guideline range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50483

Cites, in this corpus