United States v. Luis Morales-Caballero

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50418 · 2012-07-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis MENDOZA-NARANJO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Mary M. Schroeder (author), Gould, James S. Hawkins

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2012

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. 11-50418 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01752-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * LUIS ALBERTO MORALES- CABALLERO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Morales-Caballero appeals from the 45-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 * 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). we affirm.

Morales-Caballero contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors other than deterrence and by improperly considering the cost of prosecution at sentencing. The record belies these contentions. The district court adequately considered the section 3553(a) factors, and its passing mention of the cost of prosecution was a permissible explanation of the specific need for deterrence in this case.

Morales-Caballero also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the significant need for deterrence, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50418