Case ID: f-appx_433/html/0622-01.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. Victor Ramirez MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 28, 2011.
    
    Filed May 20, 2011.
    Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Ramirez Martinez appeals, arguing that the 77-month sentence imposed following his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The record as a whole “ ‘reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’ ” United States v. Ressam, 629 F.3d 793, 827 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir.2009)). The court addressed Ramirez’s medical problems — and Ramirez’s concerns about the level of care provided by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) — at length, ordered that Ramirez receive a full medical evaluation, and recommended that Ramirez be sent to an appropriate medical facility. The district court, moreover, sentenced Ramirez to the very bottom of the correct Guidelines range after concluding that Ramirez has apparently turned his life around. In light of the totality of the circumstances, Ramirez’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Although Ramirez’s allegations, if true, appear to support an Eighth Amendment challenge to the conditions of imprisonment, in that the BOP may be acting with deliberate indifference to Ramirez’s medical problems, that does not support Ramirez’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable. As the district court observed, Ramirez may raise concerns about his medical care in an administrative complaint or lawsuit.

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