Case ID: f-appx_349/html/0199-01.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. Carlos David MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50064.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2009.
    Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Jennifer Lynn Coon, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos David Martinez appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We reject the government’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 760-61 (9th Cir.2008).

Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by recognizing that a downward departure was warranted but then imposed a mid-range sentence. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Martinez also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because it failed to give adequate weight and consideration to all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, especially his extraordinary acceptance of responsibility. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Martinez’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 600-02, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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