NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10068 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00114-JCM-NJK-1 v. MIGUEL MURILLO-RAMOS, AKA MEMORANDUM* Giovanni Alberto Murillo, AKA Miguel Antonio Murillo, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 17, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,** District Judge. Appellant, Miguel Murillo-Ramos, is a native and citizen of Mexico who came to the United States early in his infancy. On November 10, 2010, Appellant was convicted of Robbery and Battery with Use of Deadly Weapon and sentenced * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. to a minimum of 26 months and a maximum of 120 months in custody. After completion of his sentence, Appellant was removed to Mexico on January 17, 2015. On November 8, 2017, Appellant was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents in Las Vegas. On August 6, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to another felony Illegal Reentry charge. On November 5, 2018, a district court sentenced Appellant to eighteen months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. On April 6, 2019, the defendant was once again removed from the United States to Mexico. On June 3, 2020, Appellant was indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Appellant pled guilty without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Appellant to prison for 46 months followed by three years of supervised release with standard conditions. Appellant appeals his 46-month prison sentence and the imposition of three years of supervised release with standard conditions. On appeal, we first consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When an appellant does not challenge an alleged procedural error below, this Court reviews for plain error. United States v. Bonilla- Guizar, 729 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2013). Plain error review requires initially 2 three things to be determined, followed by a discretionary decision. “First, there must be an error that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned. Second, the error must be plain—that is to say, clear or obvious. Third, the error must have affected the defendant's substantial rights.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904 (2018) (citation omitted). When those elements of plain error have been established, we then have discretion whether to recognize the plain error. Id. First, Appellant argues that the district court “procedurally err[ed] by failing to explain its analysis of the mitigating …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals