United States v. Gerson Fletes-Ramos
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Gerson Fletes-Ramos challenges the 56-month sentence imposed following his 2013 conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We affirm.
Fletes-Ramos first argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the judge, rather than a jury, determined facts used to sentence him to a prison term that exceeded the advisory Guidelines range, which was 41 to 51 months. This argument fails, however, because Fletes-Ramos’s sentence was well within the 20-year statutory maximum for illegal reentry. The district court judge was entitled to “exercise discretion — taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender — in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 481 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 914 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that “the advisory Guidelines remedy ... ‘gives the sentencing judge discretion to sentence outside the guideline range’ ”) (quoting United States v. Diopas, 419 F.3d 916, 919 (9th Cir.2005)); United States v. Ray, 484 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2007).