United States of America v. Elias Ortiz-Rosales, a.k.a. Julian Elias Ortiz-Rosales, a.k.a. J. Elias Rosales Ortiz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELIAS ORTIZ-ROSALES, a.k.a. Julian
Elias Ortiz-Rosales, a.k.a. J. Elias Rosales
Ortiz,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10022
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01481-CKJ-JR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Marvin E. Aspen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 12, 2014 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Elias Ortiz-Rosales appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
FILED
MAR 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ortiz-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
rule on his motion for a variance. He did not object on these grounds in the district
court, and we therefore review for plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). There was no plain error. The district court
acknowledged Ortiz-Lopez’s argument for a variance, explained its reasons for
rejecting that argument, and imposed a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines
range.
Relying on United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.
2009), Ortiz-Rosales argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
of the age of a prior conviction that resulted in an enhancement under the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
seriousness of the enhancing prior conviction and Ortiz-Lopez’s subsequent
criminal and immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Reyes, 764 F.3d 1184, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2014)
(distinguishing Amezcua-Vasquez based on defendant’s criminal history
subsequent to the enhancing prior conviction); United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607
2

-- 2 of 3 --

F.3d 1156, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing Amezcua-Vasquez where higher
sentence was necessary to deter defendant from more illegal re-entries).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --