United States of America v. Gabriel Ramos Llamas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL RAMOS LLAMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30170
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00140-RMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Ramos Llamas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-30170
Llamas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his sentencing arguments and sufficiently explain the sentence. We
disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered Llamas’s
arguments and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the significantly
below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Llamas next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the mitigating factors and the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence
and that of his co-defendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;
United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] sentencing
disparity based on cooperation is not unreasonable.”). We reject Llamas’s
contention that the district court based his sentence on his race or national origin.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --