Summary
rejecting the defendant's argument that the government's refusal to move for a downward departure was not rationally related to a legitimate end, even though defendant accepted responsibility for his crimes
Summary of this case from United States v. HughesOpinion
No. 07-10587.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 22, 2009.
Claire Kiehl Lefkowitz, Esq., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jay Aaron Marble, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-07-00410-JMR.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jesus Manuel Valenzuela-Anaya appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valenzuela-Anaya contends that the government's refusal to move for a third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b), was arbitrary because it was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. This contention lacks merit. see United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2008).