United States v. Jaime Valencia-Amezola

513 F. App'x 658
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 21, 2013
Docket11-50512
StatusUnpublished

This text of 513 F. App'x 658 (United States v. Jaime Valencia-Amezola) 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. Jaime Valencia-Amezola, 513 F. App'x 658 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50512

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03687-JLS

v. MEMORANDUM * JAIME VALENCIA-AMEZOLA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2013 **

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Valencia-Amezola appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valencia-Amezola contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to explain sufficiently a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court

gave a thorough explanation of its sentence, and it was not required to consider a

policy challenge to the Guidelines that Valencia-Amezola did not raise. See United

States v. Carper, 659 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2011).

Valencia-Amezola also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable in light of the staleness of his prior drug conviction, which triggered

the 12-level enhancement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Valencia-Amezola’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The sentence at the bottom of Guidelines is substantively reasonable in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Valencia-Amezola’s seven prior criminal convictions and

multiple prior deportations. See id.; United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d

1156, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50512

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

Related

Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Samuel Orozco-Acosta
607 F.3d 1156 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Carper
659 F.3d 923 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Valencia-Barragan
608 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 F. App'x 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jaime-valencia-amezola-ca9-2013.