USA V. DAMASO ARELLANES-ZARATE, No. 16-50055 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50055 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02709-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* DAMASO ARELLANES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Damaso Arellanes-Zarate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for improper entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. 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). Arellanes-Zarate contends that the district court erred by basing the sentence on unreliable hearsay contained in the presentence report (“PSR”). Contrary to Arellanes-Zarate’s claim, he did not object to the hearsay statements concerning his prior convictions. Thus, the district court did not err by relying on the PSR’s account of his criminal history at sentencing. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing”); see also United States v. Charlesworth, 217 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court may consider unobjected-to statements contained in the PSR). Arellanes-Zarate also contends that the district court erred by failing to provide notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) of its intent to vary above the Guidelines range. As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008). The government’s motion for judicial notice is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50055

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.