Court Opinion

ID: 3187346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-21 20:03:34.796901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:19.080253
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     MAR 21 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 15-10207

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01334-CKJ

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 ALBERTO MOJICA-GOMEZ, a.k.a.
 Alberto Gomez Mojica,

              Defendant - Appellant.

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

                              Submitted March 15, 2016**

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

         Alberto Mojica-Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction

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

      Mojica-Gomez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to consider and discuss his sentencing arguments. 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 Mojica-Gomez’s

arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for granting an 11-month

downward variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc). Moreover, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable

in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Mojica-Gomez’s criminal history. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      15-10207