United States v. Rene Aguilar
- 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
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 5 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50359 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01172-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* RENE ANTONIO AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Rene Antonio Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-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). Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court considered Aguilar’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Aguilar next contends that the district court erred by failing to explain adequately his above-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court’s explanation was sufficient to allow for meaningful review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007); United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50359