NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50112 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:19-cr-03570-W-1 v. RADAMES RAMY ALONSO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA and BADE, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge. Radames Alonso appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his sentence for smuggling undocumented immigrants into the United States in * 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). *** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. Alonso did not object at sentencing to any error that he raises on appeal. We therefore review all issues for plain error. See United States v. Juan, 704 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2013). To establish plain error, Alonso must establish that “(1) there was an error, (2) the error is clear or obvious, (3) the error affected his substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Johnson, 979 F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand in part. 1. Alonso argues that the district court plainly erred in failing to explain why it imposed a thirty-three-month sentence of imprisonment. A district court “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). If a district court “decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Indeed, the “[c]ircumstances may well make clear that the [district] judge rests his decision upon the [Sentencing] Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence . . . in the typical case, and that the [district] judge has found that the case before him is typical.” Id. at 357. 2 Here, the district court read Alonso’s sentencing documents, heard oral argument, reviewed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and determined that a thirty-three-month sentence was “sufficient but not greater than necessary.” Considering the sentence fell within the Sentencing Guidelines range of thirty-three to forty-one months of imprisonment, the district court provided an adequate explanation in this straightforward criminal case and therefore did not commit a procedural error. See id.; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals