United States of America v. Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS REYES-LIZARRAGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-10353
16-10354
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00292-CKJ-LAB
4:12-cr-02573-CKJ-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga appeals the 28-month
sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed
alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the four-month consecutive sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-10353 & 16-10354
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reyes-Lizarraga contends that his aggregate sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the 2016
amendments to the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which were
promulgated but not effective at the time of his sentencing. The record reflects that
the court took account of the pending changes to the guideline and granted a
significant downward variance. The court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that a further downward variance was unwarranted in light of the 18
U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes-
Lizarraga’s significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir.
2011) (“That the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that
is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges
does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively
unreasonable.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --