United States v. Raul Villavicencio-Burruel , 451 F. App'x 685 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2011
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. 10-50559
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02509-IEG
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RAUL VILLAVICENCIO-BURRUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Raul Villavicencio-Burruel appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed on
remand following an appeal from his jury-trial conviction for attempted entry after
deportation and making a false claim to citizenship, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326
and 18 U.S.C. § 911, respectively. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
*
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).
and we affirm.
Villavicencio-Burruel argues that the district court erred in applying the 16-
level crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). That
issue is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608
F.3d 556 (9th Cir. 2010), as he acknowledges.
He raises two additional contentions of procedural error. First, he argues
that the district court failed to consider the unwarranted sentence disparity created
by the split between this court and the Fifth Circuit on application of the crime of
violence enhancement to convictions under California Penal Code § 422. The
record belies this contention and makes clear that the district court was fully
apprised of the inter-circuit split.
Next, he contends that the district court failed to address his arguments
regarding his rehabilitation since the time of his initial sentencing. The record
reflects that the court entertained his arguments, and its statements at sentencing
were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of its below-Guidelines
sentence, the substantive reasonableness of which sentence is not challenged. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50559