USA V. JULIAN RAMIREZ-REYES, No. 18-50047 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-50047 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03166-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* JULIAN RAMIREZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Julian Ramirez-Reyes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 58-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. Ramirez-Reyes contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing * 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). to address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Ramirez-Reyes’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013). Ramirez-Reyes next contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint request for a two-level departure for fast track. He argues that the court acted pursuant to an improper blanket policy of denying fast-track adjustments to defendants who have previously received one. The record belies Ramirez-Reyes’s claim. The district court expressly disavowed having a policy against fast-track departures, and explained that it was denying a fast-track departure in Ramirez-Reyes’s case because of his particular circumstances, especially his immigration record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment or in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015). Contrary to Ramirez-Reyes’s contention, the court considered unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the 58-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the length of Ramirez-Reyes’s prior sentences for the same offense. See id. at 1184-85; United States v. Burgos- 2 18-50047 Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED. 3 18-50047
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.
