United States v. Eduardo Lara-Flores , 452 F. App'x 736 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             OCT 27 2011
    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. 11-10102
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00232-GMN
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    EDUARDO ANTONIO LARA-FLORES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Eduardo Lara-Flores appeals from the 24-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).
    Lara-Flores contends that the district court erred because it failed to address
    his mitigating argument with respect to his cultural assimilation. The district court
    did not procedurally err, as the record reflects that it considered Lara-Flores’
    arguments in this regard, but found the circumstances insufficient to justify a
    downward departure from the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2,
    cmt. n.8; United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    Lara-Flores also contends that the sentence imposed was greater than
    necessary because it did not account for the relatively minor nature of the two
    aggravated felonies used to enhance his base offense level, and failed to properly
    consider his history and characteristics. The record reflects that the district court
    considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before determining that a
    sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate under the
    circumstances. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
    circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       11-10102
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10102

Citation Numbers: 452 F. App'x 736

Filed Date: 10/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021