gno.law

United States v. Raul Villavicencio-Burruel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-50559 · 2011-10-04 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raul VILLAVICENCIO-BURRUEL, Defendant—Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Barry G. Silverman (author), Fletcher, Mary H. Murguia

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

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50559 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02509-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * RAUL VILLAVICENCIO-BURRUEL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2011 ** Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Raul Villavicencio-Burruel appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed on remand following an appeal from his jury-trial conviction for attempted entry after deportation and making a false claim to citizenship, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and 18 U.S.C. § 911, respectively. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and we affirm.

Villavicencio-Burruel argues that the district court erred in applying the 16- level crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). That issue is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556 (9th Cir. 2010), as he acknowledges.

He raises two additional contentions of procedural error. First, he argues that the district court failed to consider the unwarranted sentence disparity created by the split between this court and the Fifth Circuit on application of the crime of violence enhancement to convictions under California Penal Code § 422. The record belies this contention and makes clear that the district court was fully apprised of the inter-circuit split.

Next, he contends that the district court failed to address his arguments regarding his rehabilitation since the time of his initial sentencing. The record reflects that the court entertained his arguments, and its statements at sentencing were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of its below-Guidelines sentence, the substantive reasonableness of which sentence is not challenged. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-50559

Cites, in this corpus