USA V. CIRO HERRERA-VASQUEZ, No. 15-10559 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-10559 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-01090-DGC v. MEMORANDUM* CIRO HERRERA-VASQUEZ, a.k.a. Ciro Herrera-Vazquez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Ciro Herrera-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Herrera-Vasquez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Guidelines range allegedly overstated the seriousness of his criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing HerreraVasquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Herrera-Vasquez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Herrera-Vasquez next contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Specifically, he argues that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which permits enhancement based on the existence of a prior felony, is no longer good law. As Herrera-Vasquez acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres); United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held . . . that Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10559
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.
