gno.law

United States v. Mario Ramirez-Almaguer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50474 · 2012-07-20 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario RAMIREZ-ALMAGUER, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Mary M. Schroeder (author), Thomas, Barry G. Silverman

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2012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. 11-50474 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00790-DMS v. MEMORANDUM * MARIO RAMIREZ-ALMAGUER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 17, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Mario Ramirez-Almaguer appeals from the 48-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.

Ramirez-Almaguer argues that the district court failed to consider his arguments in mitigation and to explain its sentence sufficiently. There was no procedural error in the district court’s consideration of the parties’ arguments and explanation of its sentence. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

Ramirez-Almaguer also contends that the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history in imposing sentence and that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence nine months below the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50474

Cites, in this corpus