USA v. Jesus Trujillo-Bravo, No. 09-10434 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 09-10434 D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00078-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * JESUS TRUJILLO-BRAVO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jesus Trujillo-Bravo appeals from the 57-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 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). We decline to review Trujillo-Bravo s contention that the district court misapplied this Court s precedent concerning the departure from the Sentencing Guidelines based on cultural assimilation. After Booker, the scheme of downward and upward departures has been replaced by the requirement that judges impose a reasonable sentence. United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir. 2006). The old departure scheme is relevant today only insofar as factors that might have supported (or not supported) a departure may tend to show that a non-guidelines sentence is (or is not) reasonable. Tankersley, 537 F.3d at 1114. The record indicates that the district court s sentencing explanation was adequate under the circumstances, and that the court did not otherwise procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we cannot say that the 57-month bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court was substantively unreasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. AFFIRMED. 2 09-10434

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.