United States of America v. Luis Angel Hernandez-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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS ANGEL HERNANDEZ-RIOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50573
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00995-JAH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Angel Hernandez-Rios appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding
and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II); and high
speed flight from an immigration checkpoint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 758. We
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50573 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez-Rios contends that the district court placed undue emphasis on
aggravating circumstances that were already taken into account by the Sentencing
Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when it imposed an
upward departure from the advisory Guidelines range. The district court departed
upward by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, based upon a combination of
circumstances that were not adequately taken into consideration by the Guidelines.
The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities,
and provided a well-reasoned and thorough explanation for the sentence imposed.
The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 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 --