USA V. JUAN-MANUEL GUTIERREZ-PINEDA, No. 11-10126 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 11-10126 D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00879-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * JUAN-MANUEL GUTIERREZ-PINEDA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Juan-Manuel Gutierrez-Pineda appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his conviction for reentry after deportation, 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2). Gutierrez-Pineda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion, under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to deviate from the advisory sentencing Guidelines based on policy differences with the Guidelines, and by failing to adequately address Gutierrez-Pineda s objections to the sixteen-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). These contentions are belied by the record. Gutierrez-Pineda also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009), because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior convictions, his individual circumstances, and an amendment to the Guidelines that had not yet been adopted. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917-18 (district court not required to consider Guidelines amendment that has been promulgated but not yet adopted). AFFIRMED. 2 11-10126
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.
