Case ID: f-appx_315/html/0661-01.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. Manuel Guatemala MARTINEZ, aka Manuel Guatemala, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50035.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 3, 2009.
    Damian J. Martinez, Esquire, Timothy James Searight, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    George Workman Buehler, Buehler & Kassabian, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Guatemala Martinez appeals from the 188-month sentence reimposed following remand pursuant to United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its decision not to cap his base offense level at 30 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(a)(3), and that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because the court’s discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors was incomplete and cryptic. Following the remand, this court’s scope of review for “reasonableness” is limited to the sole issue of “[w]hether the district judge properly understood the full scope of his discretion” following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Combs, 470 F.3d at 1297. The record indicates that the district court properly understood the scope of its discretion under the advisory Guidelines. -See id. To the extent that Martinez raises additional contentions, these contentions are precluded from consideration under the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (1998).

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