NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JOSE ROBERTO GOMEZ

- ARIAS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 50118
D.C. No. 3:19

- cr - 05277

- LAB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *
Before: WALLACE , CLIFTON , and BRESS , Circuit Judges

. Jose Roberto Gomez

- Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed 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

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 50118

Gomez

- Arias first contends that the district court erred by failing to address sufficiently his arguments for a downward variance in light of COVID

- 19 , and by failing to grant the variance

. The court did not plainly err in explaining why it rejected Gomez

- Arias’s request for a variance. S ee United States v. Valencia

Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010)

. The record reflects that the court considered Gomez

- Arias’s arguments in favor of a time

- served sentence , including his arguments concerning COVID

- 19, but was not persuaded by them. See Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007). Moreover, the cou rt did not abuse its discretion by declining to vary downward from the Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 12

- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and t he t otality of the circumstances , including Gomez

- Arias’s criminal and immigration history

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

. Gomez

- Arias next argues that he is entitled to resentencing because an appearance of impropriety was created when neither the district judge , nor the prosecutor, disclosed during the sentencing hearing a forthcoming policy concerning COVID

- 19 and the prisons. We disagree. Gomez

- Arias concedes that he can only speculate that the district judge and prosecutor in his case were aware of the forthcoming policy. Moreover, he can only speculate that, had the policy been known to him, he would have been able to convince the govern ment to3 20

- 50118

recommend, and the district court to impose , a time

- served sentence based on
COVID

- 19, notwithstanding the lack of success he had with that argument at the sentencing hearing. On this record, Gomez

- Arias has not shown an appearance of impropriety. 1 See Martinez v. Ryan , 926 F.3d 1215, 1226

- 27 (9th Cir. 2019) (appearance of impropriety cannot be shown through unfounded speculation ). The government’s motion to strike certain portions of the excerpts of record and references to them in the briefi ng is granted. These materials were not part of the district court record, Gomez

- Arias has not moved to make them part of the record on appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(e), and they are not relevant to our disposition of the appeal.
AFFIRMED.

1 In Gomez

- Arias’s reply brief, he argues for the first time that the non

- disclosure of the policy by the district judge and prosecutor also violated his due process rights. This argument fails for the same reasons.