USA V. JOSE YANEZ-DOMINGUEZ, No. 16-50483 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50483 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02317-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE YANEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Yanez-Dominguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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. * 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). Yanez-Dominguez contends that the district court improperly relied on his criminal history as a reason to deny the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and impose an above-Guidelines sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The court properly considered Yanez-Dominguez’s criminal and immigration history, including his two previous illegal reentry offenses for which he received lengthy sentences. See id. at 1184. Moreover, the 18-month sentence, two months above the high end of the guideline range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50483

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.