United States v. Jesus Escoboza-Soto
This text of United States v. Jesus Escoboza-Soto (United States v. Jesus Escoboza-Soto) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50265
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-01099-LAB
v.
JESUS ESCOBOZA-SOTO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Escoboza-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Escoboza-Soto contends that the district court erred by granting only a one-
level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, rather than the four-level
departure requested by the parties, and imposing a sentence at the low end of the
resulting Guidelines calculation. “In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and
downward departures to a specific offense characteristic or other adjustment under
Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part
of a sentence’s substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411,
421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Escoboza-Soto’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances articulated by the district
court, including Escoboza-Soto’s serious criminal history, numerous prior
deportations, and failure to be deterred despite receiving a fast-track departure for a
previous illegal reentry offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-50265
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Jesus Escoboza-Soto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jesus-escoboza-soto-ca9-2019.