United States of America v. Uriel Sanchez

09-50058Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit11 feb 2010

Testo completo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
URIEL SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50058
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03530-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 13, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Sanchez appeals his above-Guidelines sentence for transportation of
illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). We review for both
procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and affirm.
FILED
FEB 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Sanchez’s sentence was not based on an impermissible factor. The record
demonstrates that the district court considered the proper factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) and does not suggest that any impermissible factor affected the sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
The district court “explain[ed the sentence] sufficiently to permit meaningful
appellate review.” Carty, 520 F.3d at 992. Nor did the court err by considering
under section 3553(a) the same conduct that had already enhanced the Guidelines
range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (requiring the court to consider the “nature and
circumstances of the offense”); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007)
(contemplating that the Guidelines sentence may “fail[] to properly reflect
§ 3553(a) considerations” or that a particular “case [may] warrant[] a different
sentence regardless”). The sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.