Robles-Ayala

MEMORANDUM *

Ramon Robles-Ayala challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate Robles-Ayala’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Robles-Ayala, through counsel, raised circumstances relevant to the district court’s sentencing analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1), the history and characteristics of the defendant. Specifically, Robles-Ayala argued that he had returned to the United States to work because he “was starving” and because he had no other way to support his three children, who had been abandoned by their mother to his care, and his aging mother. The district court did not respond to Robles-Ayala’s argument, except to say that “whatever [Robles-Ayala’s] motive for coming to the United States,” he had “shown no respect for the laws of this country.” This dismissive analysis of an argument raised by the parties and relevant under § 3553(a) is insufficient to allow us to conduct meaningful appellate review. See United, States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court must articulate its basis for sentencing “ ‘in sufficiently specific language to allow appellate…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The majority understates the district court’s sentencing analysis in this case and overstates the requirements imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). Robles-Ayala contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it does not comply with § 3553(a)’s mandate that the sentence be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” He argues that because (1) he has been sufficiently deterred from future crime, (2) his motive for committing the illegal re-entry was to feed his family, and (3) he declared that he will “never come back,” he is entitled to a lesser sentence; yet he fails to offer any evidence that demonstrates that his sentence was greater than necessary.

Robles-Ayala concedes that the district court began with the correct Guidelines Sentence, and the record makes clear that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors. During the sentencing hearing, the district judge stated:

This excerpt makes clear that the district court considered the circumstances of the offense, the tenets of punishment, and the § 3553(a) factors in its ruling. This is all that is required. Indeed, the district court need not specifically address each § 3553(a) factor,…