USA V. GABRIEL RAMOS LLAMAS, No. 15-30170 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 31 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-30170 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00140-RMP MEMORANDUM* GABRIEL RAMOS LLAMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Ramos Llamas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. 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 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). Llamas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his sentencing arguments and sufficiently explain the sentence. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered Llamas’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the significantly below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Llamas next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence and that of his co-defendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] sentencing disparity based on cooperation is not unreasonable.”). We reject Llamas’s contention that the district court based his sentence on his race or national origin. AFFIRMED. 2 15-30170
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.
