Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
19-30009•United States of America v. Juan Manuel Gomez-Fonseca
19-30009Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23.08.2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ-FONSECA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-30009
D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00054-WFN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Gomez-Fonseca appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being an alien in the United States after deportation, 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 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).
FILED
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 19-30009
Gomez-Fonseca contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to consider or address his arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence. The record
belies this claim. The district court expressly considered Gomez-Fonseca’s
arguments and explained that an upward variance from the Guidelines range was
warranted in light of Gomez-Fonseca’s significant criminal and immigration
history, and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gomez-Fonseca also argues that the above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable in light of his lack of education, untreated substance
abuse problem, impoverished background, and employment history. The district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). 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, 552
U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.