Court Opinion

ID: 2647824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-30 21:03:20.443616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:11.313805
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 30 2013

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10156

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00054-HDM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JAIME HERRERA-RAMOS,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                   Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 17, 2013**

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

       Jaime Herrera-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry, 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).
      Herrera-Ramos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to consider that he lost the opportunity to benefit from a fast-track plea agreement.

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

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court was aware that the

government offered a prior, more favorable plea, and the court provided defense

counsel with the opportunity to discuss the specific details of the lost fast-track

plea offer. Additionally, to the extent Herrera-Ramos contends that the district

court failed to recognize its authority to vary from the Guidelines range, the record

does not support this contention.

      Herrera-Ramos also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it is based on a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b), which

lacks any empirical basis and results in a disproportionally high sentence. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Herrera-Ramos’s sentence.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The bottom-of-the-Guidelines

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Herrera-Ramos’s violent criminal

history and cultural assimilation. See id.; see also United States v. Ramirez-

Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing the 16-level

                                           2                                     13-10156
enhancement reflects Congress’s intent to increase penalties for aliens with prior

convictions in order to deter others).

      Finally, Herrera-Ramos’s challenge to the use of the prior conviction to

enhance his sentence is foreclosed by United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d

1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2006).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                   13-10156