United States v. Rene Aguilar

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 5, 2018
Docket17-50359
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Rene Aguilar (United States v. Rene Aguilar) 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. Rene Aguilar, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 5 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50359

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01172-LAB

v. MEMORANDUM* RENE ANTONIO AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Rene Antonio Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-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). Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108, 1108 & n.3

(9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court

considered Aguilar’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they

warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516

(9th Cir. 2008).

Aguilar next contends that the district court erred by failing to explain

adequately his above-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court’s

explanation was sufficient to allow for meaningful review. See Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007); United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637

(9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-50359

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

Related

Rita v. United States
551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Earl Dejon Leonard
483 F.3d 635 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Valencia-Barragan
608 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Perez-Perez
512 F.3d 514 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Rene Aguilar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rene-aguilar-ca9-2018.