Court Opinion

ID: 4109878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-21 22:01:24.079047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:10.306842
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 21 2016

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   16-10034

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00790-CKJ

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MARTIN CELESTINO MORALES-
GUMECINDO, a.k.a. Martin Celestino-
Gomesindo, a.k.a. Martin Celestino
Gomesindo Morales, a.k.a. Martin
Morales-Gumecindo,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

      Martin Celestino Morales-Gumecindo appeals from the district court’s

judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

      *
             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).
conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

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

       Morales-Gumecindo contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider the proposed amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 at sentencing.

This claim fails. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917 (9th Cir.

2011) ([“W]here an amendment has been promulgated but has not yet been

adopted, district courts are not required to consider that amendment in the § 3553

analysis . . .”).

       Morales-Gumecindo next argues that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. He contends that the 16-level enhancement he received for his prior

offense resulted in a Guidelines range that was unreasonable. The court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Morales-Gumecindo. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Morales-Gumecindo’s criminal history. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    16-10034