United States of America v. Ricardo Solis-Morales

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RICARDO SOLIS-MORALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50470
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01691-H
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Solis-Morales appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50470 2
Solis-Morales contends the district court failed to adequately consider each
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including sentencing disparity, the family
circumstances that caused him to reenter, and alleged prejudice caused by the delay
in prosecution which he contends deprived him of a concurrent sentence. The
record indicates that the district court adequately considered and addressed Solis-
Morales’s arguments regarding sentencing disparities and his family, and its
explanation of the sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate
review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not
tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). In
addition, even if the district court erred by failing to address Solis-Morales’s
argument for a variance based on the delay in prosecution, Solis-Morales has not
met his burden of demonstrating that the alleged error affected his substantial
rights and the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --