Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0691-01.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. Juan GODINEZ-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Juan Godinez Martinez, a.k.a. Carlos Hernandez Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10285
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Fernanda Carolina Escalante, Assistant United States Attorney, Margaret Perimeter, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Florence Bruemmer, Attorney, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Godinez-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Godinez-Martinez contends that the district court erred by rejecting the parties’ binding plea agreement. We review the district court’s decision to reject a plea agreement for abuse of discretion. See In re Morgan v. U.S. District Court, 506 F.3d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court acted within its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement in light of individualized reasons provided by the court. See id. at 711-12.

Godinez-Martinez next contends that the district court erred by departing upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 to account for the inadequacy of his criminal history category. We review the decision to depart under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 not for procedural correctness but rather by determining whether the ultimate sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011). The 18-month, above-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Godinez-Mar-tinez’s significant criminal and immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,