United States v. Jose Cortez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Jesus CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Kim M. Wardlaw (author), Smith, Richard R. Clifton
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2012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. 11-50531 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00257-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE JESUS CORTEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Cortez appeals from the 77-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). Cortez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court should have granted a downward departure because the Guidelines range overrepresents his criminal history and because his prior felony conviction, which triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), is stale. The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, (2007); United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.
2008) (“After Booker, the scheme of downward and upward departures has been replaced by the requirement that judges impose a reasonable sentence.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50531