USA V. FRANCISCO GOMEZ-CRUZ, No. 19-50200 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 19-50200 19-50201 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:19-cr-00741-LAB-1 3:18-cr-03281-LAB-1 v. FRANCISCO GOMEZ-CRUZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Francisco Gomez-Cruz appeals the 16-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 10-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gomez-Cruz contends that the aggregate 26-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a two-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and that the circumstances did not support consecutive high-end sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The 26-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gomez-Cruz’s significant immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Moreover, contrary to Gomez-Cruz’s contentions, the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, see United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-50200 & 19-50201

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.