Court Opinion

ID: 4162037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-20 20:03:55.424635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:49.094117
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                           APR 20 2017
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-50259

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00564-JLS

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL ANGEL TRUJILLO-
RODRIGUEZ,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                   Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges the 30-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 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.

      Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines

sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.

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

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at

length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he

should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take

effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower

Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments,

but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court

explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of

Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said

more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial

rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     16-50259