USA V. ALFONSO RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, No. 17-10213 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 17-10213 17-10214 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:16-cr-01550-GMS 2:16-cr-50270-GMS v. ALFONSO RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, a.k.a. Jose Guadalupe Figueroa Juarez, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Alfonso Ramirez-Juarez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month consecutive sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and we affirm. Ramirez-Juarez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to treat the Guidelines range as a starting point and initial benchmark in imposing the sentence. According to Ramirez-Juarez, the district court instead relied on progressive sentencing concerns to impose a term three months above the high end of the advisory range for his reentry offense. We disagree. The district court considered and discussed the advisory Guidelines range, which is just one among the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors that are to be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court then discussed the other relevant section 3553(a) factors and explained at length the reasons for the variance and the sentences. The court complied with its procedural obligations. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992. AFFIRMED. 2 17-10213 & 17-10214

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.