United States v. Javier Morales-Galvez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50339 · 2012-07-03 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORALES-GALVEZ, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2012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. 11-50339 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01753-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * JAVIER MORALES-GALVEZ, 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.

Javier Morales-Galvez appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales-Galvez contends that the district court erred because it did not rule on the sufficiency of the government’s rationale for refusing to make a motion for a third point for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). The district court did not err because the record reflects that the government’s reason was not improper. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“[T]he allocation and expenditure of prosecutorial resources for the purposes of defending an appeal is a rational basis for declining to move for the third reduction point.”).

We decline Morales-Galvez’s request that we call for en banc review to reconsider Johnson.

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50339