USA v. Ricardo Solis-Morale, No. 09-50470 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 05 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 09-50470 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01691-H v. MEMORANDUM * RICARDO SOLIS-MORALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Solis-Morales appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found 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). Solis-Morales contends the district court failed to adequately consider each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including sentencing disparity, the family circumstances that caused him to reenter, and alleged prejudice caused by the delay in prosecution which he contends deprived him of a concurrent sentence. The record indicates that the district court adequately considered and addressed SolisMorales s arguments regarding sentencing disparities and his family, and its explanation of the sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ( The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them. ). In addition, even if the district court erred by failing to address Solis-Morales s argument for a variance based on the delay in prosecution, Solis-Morales has not met his burden of demonstrating that the alleged error affected his substantial rights and the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 09-50470
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.
