Court Opinion

ID: 4371933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-27 21:00:23.957633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:03.725257
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 18-50166

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:17-cr-02526-BEN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS ROLDAN-GIL,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Luis Roldan-Gil appeals 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 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).
      Roldan-Gil contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain the reasons for the sentence and its rejection of his deterrence arguments

and request for three-level departure for diminished capacity under U.S.S.G.

§ 5K2.13. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena,

631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that the court did not err. The

district court explained that it varied upwards 12 months because of Roldan-Gil’s

extensive immigration history, his lengthy criminal history, and the failure of a

prior 80-month sentence for the same offense to deter him. Additionally, the

record demonstrates that the district court considered Roldan-Gil’s diminished

capacity argument and treated his mental illness as a mitigating factor in its

analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record also

demonstrates that the court considered Roldan-Gil’s deterrence arguments and

simply was not persuaded by them.

      Roldan-Gil also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of its finding that Roldan-Gil suffered from a mental illness. The district

court did not abuse its discretion. 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. See id.

Contrary to Roldan-Gil’s contention, the district court reasonably concluded that

Roldan-Gil was a danger to the public based on the entirety of his criminal history,

                                          2                                      18-50166
which included recent acts of violence in addition to his more remote criminal

convictions.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                  18-50166