Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0731-01.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. Ismael MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Owen Peter Martikan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Johns, Esquire, Johns & Al-lyn, APC A Professional Corporation, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ismael Martinez-Hernandez appeals from the 77-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.

Citing United States v. Sanchez-Rodriguez, 161 F.3d 556 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc), Martinez-Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it failed to grant a two-level downward departure based on a pre-indictment delay. He also contends that his low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered the Sanchez-Rodriguez arguments, properly understood the scope of its direction in imposing the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Martinez-Hernandez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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