United States v. Barraza-Lopez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pedro BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Harry Pregerson (author), Marsha S. Berzon, Raymond C. Fisher
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50280 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01962-L-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN PEDRO BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals his 100-month sentence.1 We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition. 1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70- day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined.
Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here.
See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence – at the low end of an unchallenged Guidelines range – was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied to the factual record”).
AFFIRMED.