USA v. Anibar Palomares-Toledo, No. 10-10215 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 23 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-10215 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00346-RLH v. MEMORANDUM * ANIBAR PALOMARES-TOLEDO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Anibar Palomares-Toledo appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully 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 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). Palomares-Toledo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the age of his prior conviction in accordance with United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, he argues that he does not present a risk to public safety and is unlikely to re-offend given the circumstances that prompted his illegal reentry into the United States and his relatively minor criminal history. However, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of Amezcua-Vasquez s holding). AFFIRMED. 2 10-10215

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.