United States v. Jesus Gonzalez-Mendoza , 376 F. App'x 764 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 19 2010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. 09-50290
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02523-WQH
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JESUS GONZALEZ-MENDOZA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 5, 2010 **
    Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Jesus Gonzalez-Mendoza appeals from the 60-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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Gonzalez-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred by
    failing to adequately explain the sentence and by not responding to his non-
    frivolous arguments in mitigation. The record reflects that the district court
    carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including
    Gonzalez-Mendoza’s arguments in mitigation, before concluding that the
    circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. The
    district court did not procedurally err in fashioning the sentence. See United States
    v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    Gonzales-Mendoza also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
    unreasonable because the prior aggravated felony conviction used to impose a 16-
    level enhancement to his base offense level was remote in time, unrelated to the
    instant offense, and already accounted for in his criminal history score. This
    argument lacks merit. Cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 
    567 F.3d 1050
    ,
    1055-56 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 
    555 F.3d 1049
    , 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The sentence is substantively reasonable
    under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51-
    52 (2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      09-50290
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-50290

Citation Numbers: 376 F. App'x 764

Filed Date: 4/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023