United States v. Adrian Waldo-Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50180 · 2011-12-30 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian WALDO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Mary M. McKeown

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2011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. 11-50180 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04488-GT v. MEMORANDUM * ADRIAN WALDO-RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2011 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Adrian Waldo-Ramirez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, 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 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). Waldo-Ramirez first contends that the district court erred in calculating the applicable Guidelines range in that it improperly denied a downward departure for cultural assimilation. This argument fails because “it is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.”

United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). In any event, in light of Waldo-Ramirez’s criminal history, the court did not err in denying the departure. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8.

Waldo-Ramirez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in view of his cultural assimilation. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Waldo-Ramirez’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50180