Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando OROZCO-URANGA, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Fernando Orozco-Uranga appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Orozco-Uranga contends that the district court improperly double counted when it imposed a four-level enhancement for a prior illegal reentry offense and then used that offense to justify a lesser fast-track departure than that recommended by the parties. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013). First, the four-level enhancement reflected only one of Orozco-Uranga’s four prior immigration offenses, while the district court denied the fast-track departure on the basis of Orozco-Uranga’s immigration history as a whole. Second, double counting is impermissible only “when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines.” United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the district court correctly applied a four-level enhancement based on Orozco-Uranga’s prior illegal reentry conviction, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2016), and then decreased Orozco-Uranga’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. The court did not double count or otherwise err by considering Orozco-Uranga’s prior immigration offense in granting only a one-level reduction. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), district court may consider defendant’s immigration history to determine whether to grant fast-track reduction and the proper sentence). Nor does the record support Orozco-Uranga’s assertion that the court misapplied the Guidelines calculation to create the sentencing range it preferred. See id. at 1181-82.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-50357
Decided: June 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)