Court Opinion

ID: 2773723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-27 21:01:47.475941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:44.870716
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JAN 27 2015
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50094

             Plaintiff - Appellee,               D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03866-BEN

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORENZO GRADO-MEZA,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                     Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted January 21, 2015**

Before:       CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

        Lorenzo Grado-Meza appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

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

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Grado-Meza contends that the district court procedurally erred by

(1) “triple-counting” Grado-Meza’s prior convictions, (2) focusing exclusively on

deterrence and protection of the public, and (3) failing to explain adequately its

reasons for rejecting Grado-Meza’s mitigating arguments and imposing the

above-Guidelines sentence. These contentions fail. The court did not err by

varying upward based on Grado-Meza’s criminal history. See United States v.

Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (court may vary upward based

on factors already incorporated into the Guidelines calculations). Moreover, the

record reflects that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      Grado-Meza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Grado-Meza's sentence.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence

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

totality of the circumstances, including Grado-Meza’s criminal and immigration

history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587
F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a

                                          2                                     14-50094
particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

          AFFIRMED.

                                             3                    14-50094