United States of America v. Ismael Arizaga Ramos, a.k.a. Ismael Ramos Arizaga, a.k.a. Ismael Arizaga-Ramos,…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ISMAEL ARIZAGA RAMOS, a.k.a.
Ismael Ramos Arizaga, a.k.a. Ismael
Arizaga-Ramos, a.k.a. Arriaga Franco,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10303
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00493-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Arizaga Ramos appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10303 2
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Ramos contends that the district court relied upon a clearly erroneous fact at
sentencing. The district court did not rely on the future location of Ramos’s
family.
Ramos next contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
grant him a departure for cultural assimilation. Ramos also argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take into
account that his past criminal history was influenced by mental illness, because the
government delayed in prosecuting him, and because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
lacks a sound policy rationale. The sentence at the top of the advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, which include a criminal
and immigration history that underscores the need to protect the public, afford
adequate deterrence and promote respect for the criminal and immigration laws of
the United States. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --