United States v. Juan Vasquez-Hernandez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50420 · 2012-09-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2012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. 11-50420 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00792-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * JUAN CARLOS VASQUEZ- HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Vasquez-Hernandez appeals from the 44-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vasquez-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his arguments concerning a letter from a member of the jury.

This contention lacks merit, as the record reflects that the district court considered Vasquez-Hernandez’s arguments, provided an adequate explanation for rejecting his position, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Vasquez-Hernandez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50420