United States v. Norma Elizalde-Ortiz

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50283
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00166-PA-1
v. MEMORANDUM*
NORMA ELIZALDE-ORTIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 20, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,***
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge, Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant Norma Elizalde-Ortiz (“Elizalde-Ortiz”) appeals the district
court’s rejection of her Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) sentence
bargain. She also appeals her 51-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and
now affirm.
1. The district court provided specific reasons, rooted in the circumstances
of this case, for rejecting the sentence bargain. It therefore did not abuse its discretion.
See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 711–12 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. Reviewing for plain error, the district court sufficiently explained the
within-Guidelines sentence it imposed. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714
F.3d 1174, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2013). Elizalde-Ortiz’s within-Guidelines-range sentence
is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Reyes, 764 F.3d 1184, 1199 (9th
Cir. 2014)
AFFIRMED.
2