FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30292
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00079-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MONICO LOPEZ-CARRANZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 13, 2016***
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Monico Lopez-Carranza appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable William B. Shubb, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Lopez-Carranza first contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) when it pronounced sentence without
permitting him to allocute. We disagree. Although the court initially pronounced
sentence without inviting Lopez-Carranza to allocute, after it was notified of the
error, it stated that it would hear from Lopez-Carranza and “reconsider” the
sentence. Contrary to Lopez-Carranza’s argument, the record reflects that the court
gave Lopez-Carranza’s statements due consideration, but was simply unpersuaded
that they warranted a different sentence. On this record, there was no error. See
United States v. Laverne, 963 F.2d 235, 236-38 (9th Cir. 1992).
Lopez-Carranza next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the Guidelines range overstated the seriousness of his 2010
conviction and the district court did not account for his subsequent rehabilitation
and other mitigating factors. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
and the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30292