USA v. Yuri Deleon-Archila, No. 09-10407 (9th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-10407 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00084-RLH v. MEMORANDUM * YURI SAUL DELEON-ARCHILA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Yuri Saul Deleon-Archila appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Deleon-Archila contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to: 1) fully address his non-frivolous arguments in support of a lower sentence; 2) adequately explain the sentence imposed; and 3) consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Deleon-Archila also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered Deleon-Archila s arguments and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993. Deleon-Archila s contention that his sentence violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because his prior convictions were neither admitted, nor established by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 09-10407

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.