Opinion
No. 15-10506 No. 15-10507
11-03-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZ-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez, a.k.a. Hugo Gutierrez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00393-RCC 2:10-cr-01077-RCC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Aguilar appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 15-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gutierrez-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (2) address his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments, and (3) explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors and Gutierrez-Aguilar's mitigating arguments, and explained the sentence sufficiently. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gutierrez-Aguilar also contends that the 61-month aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gutierrez-Aguilar's criminal and immigration history. See id.
AFFIRMED.