USA V. MAURO ORDAZ-MORENO, No. 14-10128 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10128 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00264-GMN v. MEMORANDUM* MAURO ORDAZ-MORENO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Mauro Ordaz-Moreno appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and fraud * 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). and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ordaz-Moreno contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the staleness of his prior conviction and his cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ordaz-Moreno’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 30-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including OrdazMoreno’s criminal history and the need to promote respect for the law. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 2015 WL 468186, at *8 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2015) (noting that the defendant’s staleness argument “was taken into account under the post-Amezcua-Vasquez Guidelines amendment reducing the increase for a prior felony not scored from 16 to 12”). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10128

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.