USA V. LUIS TORRES-MARQUEZ, No. 19-50234 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-50234 D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00877-BAS-1 MEMORANDUM* LUIS TORRES-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Luis Torres-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, 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). Torres-Marquez contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court did not give adequate weight to his argument that his offense behavior was motivated by economic desperation, and gave too much weight to his dated criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the length of the sentences TorresMarquez received for his prior illegal reentry offenses, his non-immigration criminal history, and his 24 deportations prior to the commission of the instant offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-50234

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.