Court Opinion

ID: 4186796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-17 20:01:42.732087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:24.524266
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 17 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 16-10353
                                                     16-10354
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00292-CKJ-LAB
 v.                                                       4:12-cr-02573-CKJ-LAB

JESUS REYES-LIZARRAGA,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                             Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before:      CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

      In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga appeals the 28-month

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the four-month consecutive sentence

imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28

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

      Reyes-Lizarraga contends that his aggregate sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the 2016

amendments to the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which were

promulgated but not effective at the time of his sentencing. The record reflects that

the court took account of the pending changes to the guideline and granted a

significant downward variance. The court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that a further downward variance was unwarranted in light of the 18

U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes-

Lizarraga’s significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir.

2011) (“That the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that

is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges

does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively

unreasonable.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                          16-10353 & 16-10354