United States of America v. Claudia Solano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLAUDIA SOLANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50252
D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00186-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges
Claudia Solano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
18-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for bringing in
aliens and aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), (v)(II).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-50252
Solano contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to
consider or respond to her specific mitigating arguments, (2) failing to explain the
upward variance sufficiently, and (3) relying on clearly erroneous facts regarding
her upbringing. The record shows the district court considered Solano’s arguments
for a shorter sentence and addressed some of them. The court was not required to
address specifically each of Solano’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The court adequately explained the sentence and its
reasons for varying upward, noting Solano’s history of similar offenses and
concluding that deterrence, just punishment, and promoting respect for the law
supported an upward variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). Finally, the district court did not choose the sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts concerning Solano’s upbringing: Rather, it relied on
Solano’s own characterization of her childhood in explaining why it was not
persuaded by her mitigating arguments. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d
1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (district court may rely on uncontested facts
in the presentence report at sentencing).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --