United States v. Pedro Marcos-Marcos

510 F. App'x 514
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 2013
Docket11-50332
StatusUnpublished

This text of 510 F. App'x 514 (United States v. Pedro Marcos-Marcos) 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. Pedro Marcos-Marcos, 510 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The sentence was not rendered unreasonable because it was greater than his co-defendants’ sentences. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity is only one factor the judge must consider. United States v. Vasquez, 654 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir.2011) (citations omitted). Significant differences existed between Marcos-Marcos and his co-defendants.

The district court did not take improper judicial notice of the facts of another alien smuggling case. It did not take judicial notice of any facts, but merely reflected, as is appropriate, upon how this case compared in severity with others.

There is no support in the record for the contention that the district court did not understand its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Absent some contrary indication in the record, we assume that district judges understand the law. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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

Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Vasquez
654 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Carty
520 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
510 F. App'x 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pedro-marcos-marcos-ca9-2013.