United States of America v. Carlos Baeza-Rosales

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS BAEZA-ROSALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 11-30026 & 11-30027
D.C. Nos. 2:09-cr-00114-RHW
2:10-cr-00064-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Carlos Baeza-Rosales appeals from the
21-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien
in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the
12-month consecutive sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised
FILED
OCT 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30026 2
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Baeza-Rosales contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
adequately to explain the sentence imposed. We review for plain error. See United
States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court did not
plainly err, as the record reflects that it considered the relevant sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e), as well as Baeza-Rosales’s arguments in
mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below
the one imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Baeza-Rosales also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. The consecutive sentences at or near the high end of the respective
Guidelines ranges are substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a) and 3553(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --