Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0715-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norma ELIZALDE-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 26, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Sean Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
    
      
       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.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.