United States v. Victorio Perez-Romero
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victorio PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William T. Wallace (author), Jay S. Bybee, Barry G. Silverman
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50150 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00118-JLS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* VICTORIO PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Victorio Perez-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.
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-Romero contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Romero’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. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine involved in the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50150