United States of America v. Jose Luis Ortega-Saavedra, a.k.a. Luis Guzman, a.k.a. Jose Ortega, a.k.a. Smiper…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS ORTEGA-SAAVEDRA, a.k.a.
Luis Guzman, a.k.a. Jose Ortega, a.k.a.
Smiper Ortega, a.k.a. Jose Ortega Guzman,
a.k.a. Carlos Rodriguez, a.k.a. Shaggy, a.k.a.
Sniper,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10218
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-01400-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Ortega-Saavedra appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10218
attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ortega-Saavedra contends that the district court procedurally erred at
sentencing by failing adequately to explain its significant upward variance from the
high end of the applicable Guidelines range. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
that there is none. The district court considered and discussed the advisory
Guidelines range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained at
length the reasons for the variance and the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”). The court also
considered Ortega-Saavedra’s mitigating arguments. See id. at 358.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --