USA v. Julio Garcia-Equihua, No. 09-50453 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 22 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-50453 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01238-JM v. MEMORANDUM * JULIO GARCIA-EQUIHUA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Julio Garcia-Equihua appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Garcia-Equihua contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Garcia-Equihua also contends that under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), the district court erred by not explaining the reason for imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which Garcia-Equihua believes is empirically unsound. The policy behind the enhancement is sound. See United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2001). As there is no separate obligation under Kimbrough for the district court to explain why it is imposing a valid enhancement, the district court s explanation was sufficient. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992 ( [T]he district court must explain [the sentence] sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review. ). Finally, Garcia-Equihua contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993. AFFIRMED. 2 09-50453
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.
