Case ID: f-appx_711/html/0449-01.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. Miguel ESPINOZA-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-30048
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 16, 2018
    Matthew F. Duggan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & IA), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Espinoza-Munoz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Espinoza-Munoz contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to remain cognizant of the applicable Guidelines range during sentencing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and conclude that there is none. The district court correctly calculated the sentencing range under the 2016 Guidelines Manual, and used that range as the starting point before varying upward based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The record does not support Espinoza-Munoz’s argument that the district court based the sentence on the sentencing range that would have applied under the 2015 Guidelines Manual.

Espinoza-Munoz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his reasons for returning to the United States and the age' of his prior crimes. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The 36-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Espinoza-Munoz’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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