ALFREDO RAMIREZ-ESQUIVEL V. USA, No. 16-50118 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 22 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50118 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03659-JAH v. MEMORANDUM* ALFREDO RAMIREZ-ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Alfredo Ramirez-Esquivel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed following his third 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). Ramirez-Esquivel contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence without explaining why a withinGuidelines sentence was insufficient or acknowledging that the sentence exceeded the Guidelines range. He also argues that the court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments that his anxiety prevented him from complying with his supervised release conditions and that a short sentence was warranted so that he could accept a job promotion that had been offered to him. Ramirez-Esquivel’s arguments are without merit. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range as 3-9 months, but explained that a 12-month sentence was warranted, despite the mitigating arguments asserted by Ramirez-Esquivel, in light of the severity of Ramirez-Esquivel’s breach of the court’s trust. The court adequately responded to Ramirez-Esquivel’s mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the above-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50118
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.
