United States v. Teodoro Pena-segura

377 F. App'x 605
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 2010
Docket09-10127
StatusUnpublished

This text of 377 F. App'x 605 (United States v. Teodoro Pena-segura) 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. Teodoro Pena-segura, 377 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Teodoro Pena-Segura appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pena-Segura contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to consider evidence that supported a downward departure on the basis of his family circumstances, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. A review of record demonstrates that the district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Nor is the Eighth Amendment implicated by the sentence. See United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir.2007) (“[FJederal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment, and ... successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences should be exceedingly rare.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pena-Segura also contends that the Government acted arbitrarily by declining to request an additional one-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b) because Pena-Segura did not accept a plea offer. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), cert. denied — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 168, 175 L.Ed.2d 107 (2009).

Pena-Segura further contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. We decline to review Pena-Segura’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).

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

Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Joan McKenna
327 F.3d 830 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Evert Meiners
485 F.3d 1211 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Medina-Beltran
542 F.3d 729 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
377 F. App'x 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-teodoro-pena-segura-ca9-2010.