United States v. Alfredo De Jesus-Perez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50458 · 2017-10-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo DE JESUS-PEREZ, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50458 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00726-L v. MEMORANDUM* ALFREDO DE JESUS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

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

Alfredo De Jesus-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the above-Guidelines sentence of 34 months 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 * 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). we affirm.

De Jesus-Perez contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and will not overturn a district court’s sentencing determination absent procedural error or substantive unreasonableness, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56 (2007).

The district court permissibly considered De Jesus-Perez’s prior illegal reentry conviction and determined that a greater sentence for the instant offense was necessary to deter De Jesus-Perez from reoffending. See United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009). The 34-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to achieve adequate deterrence.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50458