Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellant challenged a 36-month sentence imposed for being an illegal alien found in the U.S. after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), enhanced under § 1326(b)(2). The appellant contended that the sentence was unreasonable due to disparities with other defendants who received lesser sentences through fast-track plea agreements. The appellate court affirmed the reasonableness of the sentence, noting it was below the advisory Guideline range and that the district court had properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors. The appellant also argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 was unconstitutional, referencing recent Supreme Court decisions; however, the court rejected this claim based on the precedent established in United States v. Beng-Salazar. The appellate court instructed the district court to correct the judgment by removing the reference to § 1326(b)(2) as per United States v. Rivera-Sanchez. The decision affirms the sentence and remands for judgment correction, with the disposition being non-precedential and restricted from citation according to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, rejecting the appellant's argument based on recent Supreme Court rulings, citing precedent from United States v. Beng-Salazar.
Reasoning: Additionally, Garcia-Andrade claims that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional based on recent Supreme Court rulings that challenge the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres v. United States. However, this argument is dismissed based on precedent from United States v. Beng-Salazar.
Correction of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court instructed the district court to remove the reference to § 1326(b)(2) from the judgment in accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez.
Reasoning: The court instructs the district court to remove the reference to § 1326(b)(2) from the judgment, consistent with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's disposition is not suitable for publication and is restricted from citation within the circuit, according to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: This disposition is not suitable for publication and is restricted from citation in this circuit, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sentencing Reasonableness and Disparitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the 36-month sentence was reasonable despite claims of disparities with similarly situated defendants who received lesser sentences under fast-track plea agreements.
Reasoning: Garcia-Andrade argues that his sentence is unreasonable due to disparities with similarly situated defendants receiving lesser sentences under fast-track plea agreements. The court disagrees, stating that even if there was a failure to consider unwarranted disparities, the 36-month sentence is reasonable as it is below the advisory Guideline range and the district court adequately evaluated the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors.