United States of America v. RAYMUNDO PALERMO-HERNANDEZ, AKA Adan Baez-Cruz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAYMUNDO PALERMO-HERNANDEZ,
AKA Adan Baez-Cruz,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 20-10035
20-10036
D.C. Nos.
4:16-cr-02372-CKJ-EJM-1
4:19-cr-01192-CKJ-EJM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Raymundo Palermo-Hernandez appeals from
the 41-month sentence imposed for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326, and the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10035 & 20-10036
Palermo-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider his arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors,
and by failing to explain adequately the sentence. 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 record reflects that the district court considered
Palermo-Hernandez’s arguments for a shorter and fully concurrent sentence,
considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and adequately explained its
determination that the aggregate, partially consecutive sentence was warranted.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also
United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (a sentencing
judge need not expressly address every sentencing argument).
Palermo-Hernandez next contends that the revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it does not run fully concurrent to the sentence
for his new criminal conviction. The aggregate sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including, as the district court noted, Palermo-Hernandez’s
significant immigration and criminal history. See United States v. Gall, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --