gno.law

United States v. Jaime Valencia-Amezola

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50512 · 2013-03-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2013

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. 11-50512 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03687-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * JAIME VALENCIA-AMEZOLA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2013 ** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Valencia-Amezola appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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.

* 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 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valencia-Amezola contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain sufficiently a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court gave a thorough explanation of its sentence, and it was not required to consider a policy challenge to the Guidelines that Valencia-Amezola did not raise. See United States v. Carper, 659 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2011).

Valencia-Amezola also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the staleness of his prior drug conviction, which triggered the 12-level enhancement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valencia-Amezola’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of Guidelines is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valencia-Amezola’s seven prior criminal convictions and multiple prior deportations. See id.; United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50512

Cites, in this corpus