Opinion
No. 15-10148 No. 15-10149
03-21-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTIN OMAR RAMIREZ-BUSTAMANTE, a.k.a. Martin Omar Ramirez, a.k.a. Mario Rodriguez-Vasquez, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. Nos. 4:14-cr-01348-CKJ 4:11-cr-03921-CKJ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In these consolidated appeals, Martin Omar Ramirez-Bustamante appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 21-month partially consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez-Bustamante contends that the district court erred by imposing the sentences to run partially consecutive, rather than fully concurrent. He argues that the aggregate 36-month sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his age, military service, and reasons for reentering the United States. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez-Bustamante's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ramirez-Bustamante's criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (recommending that a revocation sentence run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment).
AFFIRMED.