United States v. Juan Quiroz-Martinez , 585 F. App'x 687 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 25 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10621
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00209-LDG
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JUAN QUIROZ-MARTINEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2014**
    Before:        LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Juan Quiroz-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
    being a deported alien found unlawfully 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 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).
    The government argues that Quiroz-Martinez waived his right to challenge
    the sentence by requesting a sentence “no greater than 51 months.” We are not
    persuaded that Quiroz-Martinez’s statement effectuated a waiver of the arguments
    he raises on appeal. See United States v. Perez, 
    116 F.3d 840
    , 845 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (en banc) (waiver occurs when there has been an “intentional relinquishment or
    abandonment of a known right” (internal quotations omitted)).
    Quiroz-Martinez contends that the district court did not consider his
    mitigating arguments and failed to explain the sentence adequately. We review for
    plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 
    608 F.3d 1103
    , 1108 (9th Cir.
    2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Quiroz-
    Martinez’s mitigating arguments, the government’s arguments, and the parties’
    sentencing recommendations before imposing a sentence at the bottom of the
    Guidelines range. Nothing more was required. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Quiroz-
    Martinez’s contention, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall
    v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                  13-10621
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10621

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 687

Filed Date: 11/25/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023