United States v. Joseph Pena

390 F. App'x 733
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 2, 2010
Docket09-50398
StatusUnpublished

This text of 390 F. App'x 733 (United States v. Joseph Pena) 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. Joseph Pena, 390 F. App'x 733 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Morris Pena appeals from the 70-month- sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pena contends that the district court erred under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by increasing his sentence on the basis of a prior conviction that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted. This argument, however, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and this court’s subsequent, cases holding that Al-mendarez-Torres has not been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. See, e.g., United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2007).

Pena further contends that his sentence was unreasonable. Our review of the record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the 70-month sentence at the low end of the Guidelines was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625, 632-33 (9th Cir.2006) (downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 based on family circumstances “generally involve[s] situations where the defendant is an irreplaceable caretaker of children, elderly, and/or seriously ill family members”) (quoting United States v. Leon, 341 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.2003)). The district court was not bound by the parties’ recommendations to impose a below-Guidelines sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir.2003). Nor does the fact that Pena was offered and rejected a fast-track plea agreement that would have resulted in a lower Guidelines range render his sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798, 805 (9th Cir.2008).

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

Related

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Waldo Eugene Leon
341 F.3d 928 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Clarence Hurt, III
345 F.3d 1033 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Dorothy Menyweather
447 F.3d 625 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Julio Almazan-Becerra
482 F.3d 1085 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Carty
520 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Vasquez-Landaver
527 F.3d 798 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 F. App'x 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-pena-ca9-2010.