Court Opinion

ID: 2675292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-21 21:00:29.621965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:19.428904
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 21 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10161

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:11-cr-03496-CKJ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ISRRAEL PARAMO-VILLASANA,
a.k.a. Israel Villasana-Paramo, a.k.a.
Isrrael Villasana-Paramo,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                              Submitted May 13, 2014**

Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Isrrael Paramo-Villasana appeals his jury-trial conviction and 46-month

sentence for reentry after deportation, 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).
      Paramo-Villasana contends that the district court erred by denying his

motion to suppress his identity, which he disclosed during a traffic stop, because he

had reason to believe that he was not free to leave during the stop. We review the

denial of a motion to suppress de novo. See United States v. Del Toro Gudino, 376
F.3d 997, 998 (9th Cir. 2004). We decline to reach the issue of whether Paramo-

Villasana’s encounter with law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment

because, even assuming a violation, Paramo-Villasana’s identity cannot be

suppressed. See id. at 1000-01.

      Paramo-Villasana also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and find none. The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively

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

the circumstances, including Paramo-Villasana’s criminal history. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                              13-10161