United States of America v. Guadalupe Ramos-Aguilar, a.k.a. Vicente Aguilar Barrajas, a.k.a. Alberto Lemus

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GUADALUPE RAMOS-AGUILAR, a.k.a.
Vicente Aguilar Barrajas, a.k.a. Alberto
Lemus,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 17-10124
17-10126
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-01124-RCC
4:13-cr-00693-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Guadalupe Ramos-Aguilar appeals the
aggregate 58-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and his admission that
* 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
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-10124 & 17-10126
he violated the terms of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramos-Aguilar first contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to address his arguments in support of a downward variance. The court did
not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010). The court considered Ramos-Aguilar’s individualized circumstances
and mitigating arguments, explaining that his motive argument was not “a good
one,” and that deterrence was an important consideration. It was not required to
say more. See United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833, 842 (9th Cir. 2013) (district
court need not “detail its evaluation of every assertion made to support
[defendant’s] argument during sentencing” as long as it makes clear that the
parties’ arguments have been heard and a reasoned decision made).
Ramos-Aguilar also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v.
Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009). The court considered Ramos-Aguilar’s
mitigation arguments and determined that they were insufficient to warrant the
significant downward variance he sought in light of how quickly he returned to the
United States. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-10124 & 17-10126
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --