Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0656-01.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. Adrian WALDO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50180.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
    Mark R. Rehe, Hamilton Arendsen, Bruce R. Castetter, Asst. U.S. Attys., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Daniel Casillas, Law Office of Daniel Casillas, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adrian Waldo-Ramirez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Waldo-Ramirez first contends that the district court erred in calculating the applicable Guidelines range in that it improperly denied a downward departure for cultural assimilation. This argument fails because “it is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.” United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasis added). In any event, in light of Waldo-Ramirez’s criminal history, the court did not err in denying the departure. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 8.

Waldo-Ramirez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in view of his cultural assimilation. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Waldo-Ramirez’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir.2006).

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