Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0467-01.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. Ismael Arizaga RAMOS, a.k.a. Ismael Ramos Arizaga, a.k.a. Ismael Arizaga-Ramos, a.k.a. Arriaga Franco, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed June 29, 2012.
    Michele Myers Beckwith, USSAC — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Suzanne Adele Luban, Law Offices of Suzanne A. Luban, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ismael Arizaga Ramos appeals from the 96-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. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos contends that the district court relied upon a clearly erroneous fact at sentencing. The district court did not rely on the future location of Ramos’s family.

Ramos next contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a departure for cultural assimilation. Ramos also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account that his past criminal history was influenced by mental illness, because the government delayed in prosecuting him, and because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) lacks a sound policy rationale. The sentence at the top 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, which include a criminal and immigration history that underscores the need to protect the public, afford adequate deterrence and promote respect for the criminal and immigration laws of the United States. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 8.

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