United States of America v. Jesus Trujillo-Bravo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JESUS TRUJILLO-BRAVO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10434
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00078-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Trujillo-Bravo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10434 2
We decline to review Trujillo-Bravo’s contention that the district court
misapplied this Court’s precedent concerning the departure from the Sentencing
Guidelines based on cultural assimilation. “After Booker, the scheme of
downward and upward departures has been replaced by the requirement that judges
impose a reasonable sentence.” United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1113
(9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.
2006). “The old departure scheme is relevant today only insofar as factors that
might have supported (or not supported) a departure may tend to show that a
non-guidelines sentence is (or is not) reasonable.” Tankersley, 537 F.3d at 1114.
The record indicates that the district court’s sentencing explanation was
adequate under the circumstances, and that the court did not otherwise procedurally
err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under the totality of the
circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we cannot say that
the 57-month bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court was
substantively unreasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --