Court Opinion

ID: 4095354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-03 21:01:08.829868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:28.686485
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              NOV 03 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.    15-10506
                                                        15-10507
              Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00393-RCC
 v.                                              D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01077-RCC

MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZ-                          MEMORANDUM*
AGUILAR, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez, a.k.a.
Hugo Gutierrez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Miguel
Gomez-Garcia,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before:      LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Aguilar appeals the

46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a

      *
             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).
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 15-month consecutive

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Gutierrez-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to (1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (2) address his

nonfrivolous mitigating arguments, and (3) explain the sentence adequately. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court

considered the section 3553(a) factors and Gutierrez-Aguilar’s mitigating

arguments, and explained the sentence sufficiently. See Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 357-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

      Gutierrez-Aguilar also contends that the 61-month aggregate sentence is

substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Gutierrez-Aguilar’s criminal and

immigration history. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                           15-10506 & 15-10507