UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ JUAREZ (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Alfonso Ramirez-Juarez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month consecutive sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez-Juarez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to treat the Guidelines range as a starting point and initial benchmark in imposing the sentence. According to Ramirez-Juarez, the district court instead relied on progressive sentencing concerns to impose a term three months above the high end of the advisory range for his reentry offense. We disagree. The district court considered and discussed the advisory Guidelines range, which is just one among the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors that are to be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court then discussed the other relevant section 3553(a) factors and explained at length the reasons for the variance and the sentences. The court complied with its procedural obligations. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992.

AFFIRMED.