Case ID: f-appx_507/html/0647-01.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. Martin ESTRELLA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10607.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Offiee of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter B. Keller, Esquire, Law Office of Peter B. Keller, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Estrella-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Estrella-Romero contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the age of his prior drug trafficking offense and because the district court gave undue weight to the length of the sentence imposed for that offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Estrella-Romero’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court acknowledged that Estrella-Romero had not committed any non-immigration offenses since his drug trafficking conviction and varied downward from the Guidelines range by 15 months. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id Furthermore, the district court’s discussion of the length of Estrella-Romero’s prior sentence reflected proper concern for deterrence and Estrel-la-Romero’s lack of respect for the law.

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