USA V. MIGUEL TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, No. 16-50259 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50259 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00564-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL ANGEL TRUJILLORODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea * 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). conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments, but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50259
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.
