United States of America v. Irene Amezquita-Estrada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRENE AMEZQUITA-ESTRADA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50300
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04623-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Irene Amezquita-Estrada appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 26 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 2 --

Amezquita-Estrada contends that the district court procedurally erred by
imposing sentence based on the need to punish her new criminal conduct. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court was
concerned primarily with Amezquita-Estrada’s breach of trust and the need to
deter, rather than with punishing Amezquita-Estrada for her new offense. See
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
Amezquita-Estrada also contends that the district court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence in light of her mitigating factors and because
the court failed to depart downward to acount for the time Amezquita-Estrada had
served in pretrial detention. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Amezquita-Estrada’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The 12-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, the court was
aware of the amount of time Amezquita-Estrada had served in pretrial detention
and reasonably exercised its discretion to decline to depart downward on that basis
in light of the circumstances of this case.
AFFIRMED.
14-50300 2

-- 2 of 2 --