U.S. v. AGLONY, 421 Fed.Appx. 756 (9th Cir. 2011)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge German AGLONY,Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50484.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted March 8, 2011.[fn*]
Filed March 16, 2011.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph B. Widman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Milton Flores Gonzalez, Esquire, Milton F. Gonzalez Law Office, Gilroy, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:08-cr-00225-VAP.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jorge German Aglony appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2) and 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.Page 757
Aglony contends that his sentence was excessive and unreasonable, in that it failed to give due consideration to his history of emotional and mental trauma, drug addiction, and mental, emotional, and physical abuse. He also points out that he was almost fifty-one at the time of sentencing and that he will most likely be deported to Chile following his release.
The record reflects that the trial court considered all of the mitigating evidence presented but concluded that other factors, including the need to protect the public, carried greater weight. In view of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. See UnitedStates v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.