USA V. GONZALO AGUILAR-MARTINEZ, No. 11-50397 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 11-50397 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02362-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * GONZALO CESAR AGUILARMARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Gonzalo Cesar Aguilar-Martinez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Aguilar-Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (i) use the Guidelines range as a starting point for sentencing, (ii) explain adequately the reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence; and (iii) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors other than the need to protect the public. The record belies these contentions. The district court determined the correct Guidelines range, listened to Aguilar-Martinez s mitigating arguments, considered the section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Aguilar-Martinez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in section 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 11-50397
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.
