United States v. Marcelo Ibarra , 468 F. App'x 797 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50077
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00941-AHM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARCELO RIVERA IBARRA,
a.k.a. Manuel Delgado-Hugo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marcelo Rivera Ibarra appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United
Stated following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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.
Ibarra contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
appreciate its discretion to vary from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range on
policy grounds and by failing to explain why it rejected his policy arguments
concerning U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The record belies these contentions. The
court considered Ibarra’s arguments and explained the sentence sufficiently to
permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 502 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Ibarra further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the asserted deficiencies in section 2L1.2(b) and other sentencing factors.
We consider policy arguments like Ibarra’s within the context of consideration of
the reasonableness of the final sentence. See United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d
1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2008). The record reflects that Ibarra’s sentence, ten
months below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively
reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50077