United States of America v. PEDRO MARCOS-MARCOS, AKA Chino, AKA Pedro Marcos

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
PEDRO MARCOS-MARCOS, AKA
Chino, AKA Pedro Marcos,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50332
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00066-GHK-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The sentence was not rendered unreasonable because it was greater than his
co-defendants’ sentences. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity is
only one factor the judge must consider. United States v. Vasquez, 654 F.3d 880,
886 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Significant differences existed between
Marcos-Marcos and his co-defendants.
The district court did not take improper judicial notice of the facts of another
alien smuggling case. It did not take judicial notice of any facts, but merely
reflected, as is appropriate, upon how this case compared in severity with others.
There is no support in the record for the contention that the district court did
not understand its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85
(2007). Absent some contrary indication in the record, we assume that district
judges understand the law. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --