USA V. SIXTO GOMEZ-BAUTISTA, No. 13-10082 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 13 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10082 D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01096-CKJLAB-1 v. SIXTO GOMEZ-BAUTISTA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2013** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Sixto Gomez-Bautista appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after 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). Gomez-Bautista contends that his 36-month sentence, which is well below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 36-month sentence. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not only the appellant s reasons for re-entering the country, but also the appellant s criminal history and the need for the sentence to provide deterrence. See id.; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court did not place undue weight on need for deterrence where defendant repeatedly entered the United States illegally); United States v. HigueraLlamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that increased sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant s prior immigration offenses and the failure of previous sentences to deter him from re-offending). AFFIRMED. 2

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.