From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Orozco-Godinez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 19, 2015
619 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 15-10239

10-19-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAMIRO EDUARDO OROZCO-GODINEZ, a.k.a. Ramiro Orozco, a.k.a. Ramiro Orozco-Godinez, a.k.a. Ramiro E. Orozco-Godinez, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01759-RM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ramiro Eduardo Orozco-Godinez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Orozco-Godinez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the record does not support the district court's decision to vary upward to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Orozco-Godinez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 18-month sentence, two months above the high end of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Orozco-Godinez's criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Orozco-Godinez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 19, 2015
619 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Orozco-Godinez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAMIRO EDUARDO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 19, 2015

Citations

619 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2015)