USA v. Ivan Arevalo-Hernandez, No. 10-10142 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-10142 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00838-MHP v. MEMORANDUM * IVAN AREVALO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Ivan Arevalo-Hernandez appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following 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). Arevalo-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument for a sentence in the Guidelines range applicable to defendants offered fast-track dispositions. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 83 (2009). Furthermore, under the totality of the circumstances, the below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 10-10142

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.