Court Opinion

ID: 2760469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-12 22:00:50.857933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:21.895450
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 12 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50621

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02485-BEN

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
GUADALUPE DIAZ-CRUZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                           Submitted December 9, 2014**

Before:        WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Guadalupe Diaz-Cruz appeals from 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 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).
      Diaz-Cruz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the court failed to grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b), which

authorizes the district court to depart when the defendant’s criminal history

category overstates the seriousness of his criminal history. Our review of a district

court’s decision whether to depart under section 4A1.3 is limited to determining

whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States

v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing Diaz-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). The record reflects that the court varied upwards from the parties’

sentencing recommendation in light of Diaz-Cruz’s history of driving under the

influence and immigration violations. The sentence, 12 months above the top of

the advisory Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     13-50621