USA V. BALDEMAR LOARCA-LOARCA, No. 11-10652 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 20 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-10652 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01801-ROS v. MEMORANDUM * BALDEMAR LOARCA-LOARCA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Joseph M. Hood, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted September 10, 2012 *** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Baldemar Loarca-Loarca appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Loarca-Loarca contends that the district court erred by failing to consider properly the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence. The court acknowledged LoarcaLoarca s arguments, and explained that they were insufficient to warrant a belowGuidelines sentence in light of Loarca-Loarca s criminal history, one of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. Its failure to do more was not plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Loarca-Loarca also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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). AFFIRMED. 2 11-10652
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.
