Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel RUIZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-21
Citations: 225 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 06-50450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel RUIZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel RUIZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50450.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 21, 2007,
Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy R. Garrison, Federal Defenders Of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victor Manuel Ruiz-Estrada appeals from the 24-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of bringing an illegal alien into the United States without presentation and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ruiz-Estrada challenges the district court's application of a two-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 for the use or attempted use of a minor to commit the crime of alien smuggling. We cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding the enhancement. The district court found that Ruiz-Estrada, who falsely claimed U.S. citizenship at the primary inspection, was attempting to use his U.S. citizen children to avoid detection. The court noted that Ruiz-Estrada had twice previously been arrested for alien smuggling with some of his children in the car. See United States v. Castro-Hernandez, 258 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2001).
Ruiz-Estrada also contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court gave the sentencing guidelines presumptive weight in violation of United States v. Zavala, 443 F.3d 1165, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2006), en banc reh'g granted, 462 F.3d 1066 (2006). Even if we assume that it is improper for a district court to treat the guidelines sentencing range as the presumptive sentence, Ruiz-Estrada is not entitled to any relief. The record in this case shows that the district court did not treat the guidelines range as the presumptive sentence.
Ruiz-Estrada's second motion to file a late reply brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.