United States v. Cruz Ramon Soto , 698 F. App'x 497 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 2 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-30236
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:15-cr-0268-BLW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    CRUZ FLECHITA RAMON SOTO,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 26, 2017**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Cruz Flechita Ramon Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions
    for assault resulting in serious bodily injury committed within Indian Country, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 113
    (a)(6) and 1153, and using a firearm during and in
    relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A). We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    For the first time on appeal, Soto contends that the district court failed to
    address adequately the nature and circumstances of the offense, and his history and
    characteristics. The court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-
    Barragan, 
    608 F.3d 1103
    , 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the court
    considered Soto’s arguments and concluded that, notwithstanding the mitigating
    circumstances cited by Soto, an upward variance was warranted under the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) sentencing factors.
    Soto next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
    district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    ,
    51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
    the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
    including Soto’s criminal history and the victim’s permanent, debilitating injury.
    See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      16-30236
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-30236

Citation Numbers: 698 F. App'x 497

Filed Date: 10/2/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023