FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50259
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00564-JLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL ANGEL TRUJILLO-
RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
*
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).
conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines
sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at
length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he
should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take
effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower
Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments,
but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court
explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of
Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said
more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial
rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50259