United States of America v. Felipe Jasso-Rios

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).
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for***
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIPE JASSO–RIOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50432
D.C. No. 3:11-CR-01280-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge, and RAKOFF,
Senior District Judge.***
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Felipe Jasso–Rios contends that the district court committed plain procedural
error by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary downward from the Guidelines
on policy grounds under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109–110
(2007), and by improperly considering the cost of prosecution at sentencing. The
record belies these contentions. The district court considered Jasso–Rios’s policy
challenge, and did not plainly err in rejecting it as beside the point in light of
Jasso–Rios’s long record of immigration offenses. See United States v. Ayala-
Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition, the district court’s
discussion of the cost of prosecution was, in context, simply an explanation of the
enhanced need for deterrence and public protection in this case.
Jasso–Rios also contends that his within–Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable. In light of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) and the totality of the circumstances, including Jasso–Rios’s two prior
convictions and more than forty encounters with immigration officials, the
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --