Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0457-01.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. Mario RAMIREZ-ALMAGUER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 20, 2012.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., George Manahan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Tommy Hai Vu, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders Of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Ramirez-Almaguer appeals from the 48-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. § 1S26. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez-Almaguer argues that the district court failed to consider his arguments in mitigation and to explain its sentence sufficiently. There was no procedural error in the district court’s consideration of the parties’ arguments and explanation of its sentence. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010).

Ramirez-Almaguer also contends that the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history in imposing sentence and that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence nine months below the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.