United States of America v. Santos Garcia-Mendoza

10-10087Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 5, 2011

Full text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
SANTOS GARCIA-MENDOZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10087
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00805-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Santos Garcia-Mendoza appeals from the 28-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
JAN 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10087 2
Garcia-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred by
imposing a sentence without properly considering his arguments with respect to the
application of the 16-level enhancement at U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based upon
his prior conviction for a crime of violence. The record reflects that the district
court listened to and considered Garcia-Mendoza’s arguments in this regard, but
found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one
imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc); see also United States v. Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).
Garcia-Mendoza also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable in light of the significant mitigating factors surrounding his prior
conviction and personal circumstances. Under the totality of the circumstances,
the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at
991-93; Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.