USA V. GOSADA MUNOZ, No. 16-50019 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50019 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01053-R v. MEMORANDUM* GOSADA MUNOZ, a.k.a. Vincecio Duke, a.k.a. Agapito Godines, a.k.a. Martin Godines, a.k.a. Agapito Gosada, a.k.a. Marcos Martinez, a.k.a. Rolando Martinez, a.k.a. Jose Moran, a.k.a. Agapito Munoz, a.k.a. Gasada Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guanerges Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guaners Munoz, a.k.a. Gosoda Munoz, a.k.a. Antonio Nunez, a.k.a. Marcos Ortega, a.k.a. Morcus Ortega, a.k.a. Javier Ramirez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Rodriguez, a.k.a. Daniel Romeo, a.k.a. Tiny, a.k.a. Tiny Locos, Defendant-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Gosada Munoz challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Munoz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and respond to his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court listened to Munoz’s arguments and explained that it had reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. The court’s failure to do more was not plain error. See id. AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 16-50019

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.