USA V. JORGE PEREZ-DIAZ, No. 16-50229 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50229 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03064-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* JORGE PEREZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jorge Perez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month custodial sentence and ten-month term of supervised release 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). Perez-Diaz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his mitigating argument that his underlying deportation order may have been erroneous. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered Perez-Diaz’s arguments and explained sufficiently its determination that an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of his significant criminal and immigration history. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007). Perez-Diaz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Diaz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50229
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.
