Case ID: f-appx_463/html/0615-01.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. Juan Antonio QUINTANILLA, a.k.a. Mauricio Guerrero, a.k.a. Antonio Mendez, a.k.a. Mauricio Mendez, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50531.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2011.
    David Michael Herzog, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer Leigh Williams, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robison D. Harley, Jr., Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Antonio Quintanilla appeals from the 90-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime and a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Quintanilla contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it rejected Quintanilla’s argument that the Guidelines overstated his criminal history. The district court did not err, plainly or otherwise. The record shows that the court entertained Quintanil-la’s arguments regarding the departure and declined to depart because it did not find Quintanilla’s arguments persuasive. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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