Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0596-01.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. Gosada MUNOZ, a.k.a. Vincecio Duke, a.k.a. Agapito Godines, a.k.a. Martin Godines, a.k.a. Agapito Gosada, a.k.a. Marcos Martinez, a.k.a. Rolando Martinez, a.k.a. Jose Moran, a.k.a. Agapito Munoz, a.k.a. Gasada Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guanerges Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guaners Munoz, a.k.a. Gosoda Munoz, a.k.a. Antonio Nunez, a.k.a. Marcos Ortega, a.k.a. Morcus Ortega, a.k.a. Javier Ramirez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Rodriguez, a.k.a. Daniel Romeo, a.k.a. Tiny, a.k.a. Tiny Locos, Defendant-Appellant,
    
      No. 16-50019
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Russell S. Babcock, Attorney, Law Office of Russell Babcock, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes.this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gosada Munoz challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Munoz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and respond to his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court listened to Munoz’s arguments and explained that it had reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. The court’s failure to do more was not plain error. See id.

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