USA V. GUILLERMO GARCIA-OCAMPO, No. 11-50509 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 11-50509 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04312-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM * GUILLERMO GARCIA-OCAMPO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Guillermo Garcia-Ocampo pleaded guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and now appeals the district court s sentence. 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 district court did not rely on an impermissible factor in sentencing Garcia. Taken in context, the district court s references to the costs of prosecution and incarceration related to its consideration of deterring any future crimes. These references are not inconsistent with United States v. Tapia-Romero, which precludes district courts from considering the costs of incarceration as weighing in favor of shortening a sentence, see 523 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008), not from considering the costs associated with recidivism. The district court s references to cost as both minor and salient were not inherently contradictory or confusing in context, and did not impede appellate review. The district court also adequately acknowledged Garcia s arguments regarding mitigating circumstances. These arguments simply failed to alleviate the court s legitimate concern with Garcia s recidivism. See United States v. Carty. See 520 F.3d 984, 992 93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court s decision to impose supervised release was procedurally and substantively reasonable. It was supported by the court s stated aim of deterring Garcia from future misconduct, by Garcia s history of illegal reentry convictions, and by the fact that Garcia had violated supervised release connected to a previous conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5. Therefore, any error in failing to reference § 5D1.1(c) was harmless. 2 Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by focusing on deterrence, which is a permissible factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). A district court need not expressly mention the rest of the § 3553(a) factors if they are not relevant to a particular defendant. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992. AFFIRMED. 3