United States of America v. Nelson Carrillo-Garcia, a.k.a. Nelso

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
NELSON CARRILLO-GARCIA, a.k.a.
Nelso,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50526
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00334-GAF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Carrillo-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
FILED
JAN 08 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-50526 2
(b)(1)(A)(viii). We review unpreserved claims of procedural error for plain error
and challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carrillo-Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i)
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, (ii) failing to consider all of the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and various mitigating arguments, (iii) failing
to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities, and (iv) relying upon clearly
erroneous facts. The district court understood its discretion under the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines, considered Carrillo-Garcia’s arguments in mitigation as
part of its evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, expressly
considered the issue of sentencing disparities, and did not rely upon clearly
erroneous facts or otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Carrillo-Garcia also contends that the district court impermissibly
lengthened his sentence, in part, to enable him to obtain superior medical care.
The record does not support the contention that the court lengthened Carrillo-
Garcia’s sentence in order to promote his health.
Carrillo-Garcia finally contends that his sentence is substantively

-- 2 of 3 --

11-50526 3
unreasonable in light of his poor health and lack of criminal history. The sentence
ten months below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Carrillo-Garcia’s motion to preserve confidentiality in the disposition of this
case is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --