USA V. JAIME LUJAN-SALGADO, No. 17-50376 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-50376 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01837-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* JAIME LUJAN-SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Jaime Lujan-Salgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, 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 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). Lujan-Salgado contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to recent Guidelines amendments and to the Guidelines calculation, and betrayed the parties’ expectations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing LujanSalgado’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record demonstrates that the district court considered the Guidelines and the parties’ sentencing recommendations. The district court concluded, however, that an above-Guidelines sentence was necessary to deter Lujan-Salgado from returning unlawfully and to protect the public. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Lujan-Salgado’s extensive immigration and criminal history, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 17-50376

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.