United States of America v. ANTONIO BERUMEN-GURROLA, AKA Antonio Beruman, AKA Antonio Beruman-Gurrola

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ANTONIO BERUMEN-GURROLA,
AKA Antonio Beruman, AKA Antonio
Beruman-Gurrola,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10521
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00494-DCB-
JCG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges
Antonio Berumen-Gurrola, a federal prisoner, appeals the 57-month prison
sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

In any event, unlike the defendant in Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at 1056,1
Berumen’s prior conviction was not “unrepresentative of [his] characteristics
during the past many years” leading up to his reentry conviction.
2
8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable. We have
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s sentencing
decision for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45–46, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 594, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). We affirm.
Berumen does not contest the guidelines range of 57 to 71 months but only
the district court’s refusal to depart downward. Specifically, he argues that the
district court’s application of a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A) due to a prior offense was not reasonable, relying on United States
v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054–56 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding, on the
facts, that enhancement was unreasonable because the prior conviction was stale
and the defendant had no subsequent convictions for violent crimes).
Berumen’s prior offense underlying the enhancement is not stale. In fact,
his parole for the offense does not expire until February 24, 2012. The record1
reflects that the district court considered Berumen’s arguments and found that a
downward departure was unwarranted. The district court did not abuse its
discretion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --