United States v. Jose Espinoza-Ventura

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 18, 2015
Docket14-10329
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Jose Espinoza-Ventura (United States v. Jose Espinoza-Ventura) 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. Jose Espinoza-Ventura, (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10329

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00402-KJD

v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE ESPINOZA-VENTURA, a.k.a. Alfredo Ernesto-Ramirez, a.k.a. Jesus Jose Tobar,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2015**

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Espinoza-Ventura appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

* 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). being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Espinoza-Ventura contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

in light of the staleness of his prior conviction and his cultural assimilation. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Espinoza-Ventura’s sentence.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence at the

bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552

U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Burgos-Ortega , 2015 WL 468186, at *8 (9th

Cir. Feb. 5, 2015) (noting that the defendant’s staleness argument “was taken into

account under the post-Amezcua-Vasquez Guidelines amendment reducing the

increase for a prior felony not scored from 16 to 12”).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-10329

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. Alejandro Burgos-Ortega
777 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jose Espinoza-Ventura, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-espinoza-ventura-ca9-2015.