United States of America v. Feliciano Memije-Santos

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
FELICIANO MEMIJE-SANTOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10339
D.C. No. 5:08-cr-00596-JDF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Feliciano Memije-Santos appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
SEP 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-10339 2
Memije-Santos contends that the district court procedurally erred by
imposing a sentence without properly considering his arguments with respect to the
application of a 16-level enhancement based upon either of his two prior felony
convictions for crimes of violence. The record reflects that the district court
listened to and considered Memije-Santos’ arguments in this regard, but found the
circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one imposed. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also
United States v. Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. United
States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2009).
Memije-Santos also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory
purposes of sentencing when considered in light of the significant mitigating
factors that he presented. The record reflects that the sentence below the
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --