Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0460-01.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. Mario PEREZ-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 18, 2008.
    Filed Dec. 12, 2008.
    
      William Walter Mercer, U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S., USMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Perez-Chavez appeals his sentence. We find that the district court did not err by categorically refusing to consider whether to disagree with the policy underlying the United States Sentencing Guidelines’ sentence enhancement for aliens with felony convictions.

First, the district court did consider the policy behind the sentencing enhancement, and found that it was justified.

More importantly, Kimbrough v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), does not impose an affirmative duty to consider whether to disagree with the Guidelines in every sentencing decision. Rather, it gives a district judge discretion to do so.

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