United States v. Jose Aguilar , 363 F. App'x 496 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 26 2010
    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. 09-30164
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:07-CR-02091-WFN
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOSE GUADALUPE AGUILAR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 11, 2010 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Guadalupe Aguilar appeals from the 115-month sentence imposed
    following his jury-verdict conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm,
    *
    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).
    EG/Research
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), and possession of body armor, in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 931
    (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we
    affirm.
    Aguilar contends that the district court judge committed procedural error by
    relying on clearly erroneous facts at sentencing. The record reflects that the district
    court judge did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007) (stating that it is procedural error to select a sentence based on clearly
    erroneous facts).
    Aguilar also contends that the sentence at the top of the Guidelines range
    was substantively unreasonable. However, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in rejecting Aguilar’s argument that he should receive some credit for
    acceptance of responsibility. See 
    id.
     Considering the totality of the circumstances,
    the district court’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See 
    id.
    AFFIRMED.
    EG/Research                                2                                        09-30164
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30164

Citation Numbers: 363 F. App'x 496

Judges: Beezer, Trott, Bybee

Filed Date: 1/26/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024