Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Henry JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-02
Citations: 536 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 12-50072
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Henry JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Henry JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50072.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 2, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Brett Alan Sagel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brent F. Romney, Blumenthal Law Offices, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
George Henry Jaramillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the $50,000 fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for willful filing of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jaramillo contends that the district court's imposition of the $50,000 fine was vindictive and therefore violates his right to due process. We review' de novo a claim that the imposition of a sentence after a successful appeal violates a defendant's right to due process. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d 483, 489 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000). Jaramillo's contention fails because there is no presumption of vindictiveness when there is no net increase in punishment. See United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir.1987). Further, Jaramillo has not shown that the court was motivated by vindictiveness. Rather, the record reflects that the district court based the sentence on proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3572(a).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.