USA V. JOSE MENDOZA-NARANJO, No. 11-50487 (9th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 29 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-50487 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04492-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE LUIS MENDOZA-NARANJO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Mendoza-Naranjo appeals from the two-year 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 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291, and we affirm. Mendoza-Naranjo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the Sentencing Guidelines, failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and not adequately explaining the basis for its upward variance from the Guidelines range. The record belies these contentions. The district court considered the Guidelines and the section 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Mendoza-Naranjo also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of section 3553(a). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 11-50487

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.