Case ID: f-appx_523/html/0445-01.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. Ruben MARTINEZ-SOLANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50245.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 13, 2013.
    Sheila Nagaraj, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Clayton Binninger, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Martinez-Solano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 66-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. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Solano contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to justify the sentence sufficiently and by disregarding his sentencing arguments. The court did not err, as the record reflects that it thoroughly explained the reasons for the sentence and specifically responded to Martinez-Solano’s arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en bane).

Martinez-Solano further contends that the district court proeedurally erred by basing the sentence on the clearly erroneous finding that he had a record of violent conduct. The court did not clearly err in its characterization of Martinez-Solano’s criminal history.

Martinez-Solano also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Martinez-Solano’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-Solano’s lengthy criminal history and willingness to reoffend despite his pri- or sentences for immigration offenses. See id.

To the extent Martinez-Solano argues that the district court placed undue weight on deterrence in selecting the sentence, we identify no abuse of discretion in this regard. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).

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