USA V. LEONEL PEREZ, No. 13-50519 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50519 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00359-SVW-1 MEMORANDUM* v. LEONEL AVILA-PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 20, 2014** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge, Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Defendant-Appellant Leonel Avila-Perez (“Avila-Perez”) appeals the district court’s rejection of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) sentence bargain. He also appeals his 36-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and now affirm. 1. Because the district court provided specific reasons, rooted in the circumstances of this case, for rejecting the sentence bargain, it did not abuse its discretion. See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 711–12 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not plainly err in its statements made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5)(B), and Avila -Perez fails to show that any error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5)(C) affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2010). 2. Avila-Perez waived his fact-bound objection to the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), to which he agreed during sentencing. See United States v. Hernandez-Ramirez, 254 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court sufficiently explained the below-Guidelines-range sentence it imposed. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2013). Assuming plain error, Avila-Perez fails to show the Government’s silence at sentencing affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 552–53 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.