Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0340-01.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. Jose Juan MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Jose Juan Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10142
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 01, 2016
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Frederick Michael Carrillo, Esquire, Attorney, Carrillo Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Juan Martinez-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed fohowing his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Martinez contends that the district court abused its discretion by departing upwards on the basis of its conclusion that Martinez-Martinez’s offense level substantially understated the seriousness of his prior convictions. Our review of Martinez-Martinez’s chaUenge to the district court’s decision to depart under note 7 of the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is limited to determining whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2012). Contrary to Martinez-Martinez’s argument, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-Martinez’s criminal history and the fact that he attempted to reenter the country within two months of being deported. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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