United States v. Alejandro Gutierrez

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Alejandro Gutierrez

585 F. App'x 377

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 2014

Docket13-50008

StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 377 (United States v. Alejandro Gutierrez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alejandro Gutierrez, 585 F. App'x 377 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Alejandro Melchor Gutierrez appeals the district court’s imposition of a 77-month term of incarceration and a three-year term of supervised release, following his conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Melchor contends that the Government breached the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement by implicitly arguing for a sentence greater than that which the parties had agreed to recommend. We hold that there was no plain error because, even assuming breach, Melchor has not shown that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 718 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2013). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement, because it adequately set forth its reasons for rejection in light of the specific circumstances of this case. See United States v. Harris, 679 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2012).

Melchor also challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his term of imprisonment. Melchor’s procedural challenge fails under the plain error standard because there is no reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the district court’s alleged errors. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, considering the totality of the circumstances, including Melchor’s criminal history and prior deportations, the *378 within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).

The district court did not plainly err by imposing a three-year term of supervised released. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.2012).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Alejandro Melchor Gutierrez appeals the district court’s imposition of a 77-month term of incarceration and a three-year term of supervised release, following his conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Melchor contends that the Government breached the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement by implicitly arguing for a sentence greater than that which the parties had agreed to recommend. We hold that there was no plain error because, even assuming breach, Melchor has not shown that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 718 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2013). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement, because it adequately set forth its reasons for rejection in light of the specific circumstances of this case. See United States v. Harris, 679 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2012).

Melchor also challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his term of imprisonment. Melchor’s procedural challenge fails under the plain error standard because there is no reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the district court’s alleged errors. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, considering the totality of the circumstances, including Melchor’s criminal history and prior deportations, the *378 within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).

The district court did not plainly err by imposing a three-year term of supervised released. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.2012).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F. App'x 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alejandro-gutierrez-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack