United States of America v. Aaron Garibay Delgado, a.k.a. Brain, a.k.a. Aaron Ruben Garibay- Delgado

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
AARON GARIBAY DELGADO, a.k.a.
Brain, a.k.a. Aaron Ruben Garibay-
Delgado,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50383
D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00283-JVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Garibay Delgado appeals from the 235-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50383 2
for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delgado contends that the district court committed procedural error by
treating the sentencing range calculated by reference to the Career Offender
Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(A), as “virtually mandatory,” by overemphasizing
the need for deterrence, and by “fail[ing] to recognize the numerous ways in which
courts are permitted to deviate from the career offender guidelines.” The record
belies these contentions.
Delgado also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
because the district court ignored “the tremendous extent to which [his] priors
unreasonably increased [his] advisory Guidelines” and gave “virtually no weight to
his personal characteristics and history.” He argues that his sentence was greater
than necessary to serve the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These contentions
are without merit. The 235-month sentence, which was 57 months below the
correctly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, was substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --