United States v. Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga , 693 F. App'x 693 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-10353
16-10354
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00292-CKJ-LAB
v. 4:12-cr-02573-CKJ-LAB
JESUS REYES-LIZARRAGA,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga appeals the 28-month
sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed
alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the four-month consecutive sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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.
Reyes-Lizarraga contends that his aggregate sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the 2016
amendments to the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which were
promulgated but not effective at the time of his sentencing. The record reflects that
the court took account of the pending changes to the guideline and granted a
significant downward variance. The court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that a further downward variance was unwarranted in light of the 18
U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes-
Lizarraga’s significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir.
2011) (“That the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that
is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges
does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively
unreasonable.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10353 & 16-10354