Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo Eduardo ACEDO-ROMERO, aka Guillermo Edwardo Acedo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-18
Citations: 650 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 15-10438
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo Eduardo ACEDO-ROMERO, aka Guillermo Edwardo Acedo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 650
Pages: 410–410

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo Eduardo ACEDO-ROMERO, aka Guillermo Edwardo Acedo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10438.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2016.
Filed May 18, 2016.
Susanna M. Torres, Office of the Us Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Francisco Leon, Esquire, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Guillermo Eduardo Acedo-Romero pleaded guilty to one count, of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. He appeals his twenty-four month sentence for that conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Acedo-Romero's plea agreement and imposing the twenty-four month sentence of incarceration recommended in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 708 (9th Cir.2007). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 allows the district court to reject the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which stipulated to a specific sentencing range of 57 to 71 months incarceration. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(A); United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir.2014). Moreover, the agreement expressly provides that the court may reject it if "any provision is inappropriate." That is precisely what occurred here: Upon review of the PSR, the district court determined that the agreement's sentencing stipulation, which was predicated on a base offense level of 24, was not appropriate because the correct base offense level was 12. By rejecting the agreement, the district court properly declined to "remake [the] plea agreement or imply terms into [it]." United States v. Hammond, 742 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir.2014). Because the district court rejected the plea agreement, the government could not have breached it.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.