USA V. FERNANDO RUIZ-GUZMAN, No. 16-30172 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30172 D.C. No. 2:06-cr-02056-EFS v. MEMORANDUM* FERNANDO RUIZ-GUZMAN, a.k.a. Gerardo Torres Ruiz-Guzman, a.k.a. Gerardo Torres-Guzman, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Fernando Ruiz-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 19-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 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). Ruiz-Guzman contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the 41-month sentence he received for the criminal offense underlying the revocation and other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence, which was ordered to run consecutively to the 41-month sentence, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ruiz-Guzman’s criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of supervised release shall run consecutively to sentence defendant is already serving); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he violator should be punished both for breaching the court’s trust and for the new criminal conduct, as each act is separately and distinctly offensive.”). Contrary to Ruiz-Guzman’s contention, the court’s discussion of his criminal history was proper, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e), and did not reflect any reliance on unadmitted conduct. AFFIRMED. 2 16-30172

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.