United States v. Guillermo Garcia-Ocampo , 491 F. App'x 861 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 13 2012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. 11-50509
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04312-LAB-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    GUILLERMO GARCIA-OCAMPO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
    Pasadena, California
    Before: BERZON, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Guillermo Garcia-Ocampo pleaded guilty to a violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    and now appeals the district court’s sentence. 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 district court did not rely on an impermissible factor in sentencing
    Garcia. Taken in context, the district court’s references to the costs of prosecution
    and incarceration related to its consideration of deterring any future crimes. These
    references are not inconsistent with United States v. Tapia-Romero, which
    precludes district courts from considering the costs of incarceration as weighing in
    favor of shortening a sentence, see 
    523 F.3d 1125
    , 1126 (9th Cir. 2008), not from
    considering the costs associated with recidivism. The district court’s references to
    cost as both “minor” and “salient” were not inherently contradictory or confusing
    in context, and did not impede appellate review.
    The district court also adequately acknowledged Garcia’s arguments
    regarding mitigating circumstances. These arguments simply failed to alleviate the
    court’s legitimate concern with Garcia’s recidivism. See United States v. Carty.
    See 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992–93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    The district court’s decision to impose supervised release was procedurally
    and substantively reasonable. It was supported by the court’s stated aim of
    deterring Garcia from future misconduct, by Garcia’s history of illegal reentry
    convictions, and by the fact that Garcia had violated supervised release connected
    to a previous conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5. Therefore, any error in
    failing to reference § 5D1.1(c) was harmless.
    2
    Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by focusing on
    deterrence, which is a permissible factor under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2)(B). A
    district court need not expressly mention the rest of the § 3553(a) factors if they are
    not relevant to a particular defendant. See Carty, 
    520 F.3d at 992
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-50509

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 861

Judges: Berzon, Clifton, Ikuta

Filed Date: 12/13/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024