United States v. Jaime Herrera-Ramos

551 F. App'x 300

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Herrera-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Herrera-Ramos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider that he lost the opportunity to benefit from a fast-track plea agreement. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valendor-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The district court was aware that the government offered a prior, more favorable plea, and the court provided defense counsel with the opportunity to discuss the specific details of the lost fast-track plea offer. Additionally, to the extent Herrera-Ramos contends that the district court failed to recognize its authority to vary from the Guidelines range, the record does not support this contention.

Herrera-Ramos also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is based on a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b), which lacks any empirical basis and results in a disproportionally high sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Herrera-Ramos’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Herrera-Ramos’s violent criminal history and cultural assimilation. See id.; see also United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing the 16-level enhancement reflects Congress’s intent to increase penalties for aliens with prior convictions in order to deter others).

Finally, Herrera-Ramos’s challenge to the use of the prior conviction to enhance his sentence is foreclosed by United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

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