United States of America v. Jorge Sanchez-Ramirez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JORGE SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50092
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03652-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Sanchez-Ramirez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
FILED
FEB 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50092 2
we affirm.
Sanchez-Ramirez contends that he should have been sentenced to no more
than two years, the statutory maximum stated in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Contrary to
his contention, the statutory maximum in this case is 20 years because of his prior
aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Sanchez-Ramirez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed and by failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court
considered the Sanchez-Ramirez’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons
for imposing a sentence 13 months below the advisory Guidelines range. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Further,
in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing
factors, Sanchez-Ramirez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.
Sanchez-Ramirez’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is
denied. Because Sanchez-Ramirez is represented by counsel, only counsel may
submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filings received on
October 18, 2011, and December 29, 2011.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --