United States of America v. George Henry Jaramillo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
GEORGE HENRY JARAMILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50072
D.C. No. 8:07-cr-00036-AG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
George Henry Jaramillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the $50,000 fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
willful filing of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Jaramillo contends that the district court’s imposition of the $50,000 fine
was vindictive and therefore violates his right to due process. We review de novo
a claim that the imposition of a sentence after a successful appeal violates a
defendant’s right to due process. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d
483, 489 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). Jaramillo’s contention fails because there is no
presumption of vindictiveness when there is no net increase in punishment. See
United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, Jaramillo has
not shown that the court was motivated by vindictiveness. Rather, the record
reflects that the district court based the sentence on proper sentencing factors. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3572(a).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --