United States of America v. Ponciano Diaz-Sosa, a.k.a. Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PONCIANO DIAZ-SOSA, a.k.a.
Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50124
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04099-IEG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2014
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 --

Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he
would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the
applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard
Diaz-Sosa’s mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
13-50124 2

-- 2 of 2 --