USA V. JUAN QUIROZ-MARTINEZ, No. 13-10621 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10621 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00209-LDG v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN QUIROZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Juan Quiroz-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-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). The government argues that Quiroz-Martinez waived his right to challenge the sentence by requesting a sentence “no greater than 51 months.” We are not persuaded that Quiroz-Martinez’s statement effectuated a waiver of the arguments he raises on appeal. See United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (waiver occurs when there has been an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” (internal quotations omitted)). Quiroz-Martinez contends that the district court did not consider his mitigating arguments and failed to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered QuirozMartinez’s mitigating arguments, the government’s arguments, and the parties’ sentencing recommendations before imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Nothing more was required. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to QuirozMartinez’s contention, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 13-10621
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.
