Case ID: f-appx_601/html/0543-02.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 MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, a.k.a. Sergio Ponce De Leon, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Gonzalez, a.k.a. Miguel Gonzalez-Martinez, a.k.a. Miguel Gonzalez-Villareal, a.k.a. Miguel Martinez, a.k.a. Mario Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10121, 14-10125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 22, 2015.
    
    Filed April 30, 2015.
    Robert Ian Brooks, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea Lynn Matheson, Castillo Law Firm PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Martinez-Villareal appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 79-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 16-month consecutive sen- - tence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Villareal contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to explain adequately the sentences imposed, (2) failing to address his sentencing arguments, and (3) presuming that a Guidelines sentence was reasonable. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia—Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Martinez-Villareal’s arguments, sufficiently explained the sentences, and properly treated the Guidelines as advisory in granting Martinez-Villareal’s request for a downward variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the below-Guidelines sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-Villareal’s criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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