United States v. Jose De Jesus Garay-Gonzalez

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Jose De Jesus Garay-Gonzalez

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30272

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00225-EJL-1 v. JOSE DE JESUS GARAY-GONZALEZ, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jose de Jesus Garay-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. 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).

Garay-Gonzalez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is longer than necessary, particularly in light of his inability to participate in any rehabilitative programming in prison as a result of his immigration status. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 210-month sentence, which is at the low-end of the undisputed Guidelines range and was recommended by both parties, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Garay-Gonzalez’s criminal history and the nature and circumstances of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Contrary to Garay-Gonzalez’s assertion, the record reflects that the district court heard and understood his mitigating arguments; it was not persuaded that they justified a shorter sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-30272

Reference

Status
Unpublished