United States v. Juan Molina-Cruz
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MOLINA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Stephen S. Trott
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50546 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04288-WQH v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN MOLINA-CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Molina-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Molina-Cruz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) relying on an improper sentencing factor and failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, (ii) failing to consider his mitigating arguments, and (iii) failing to explain the need for the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Molina-Cruz’s mitigating arguments, did not consider any improper sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008).
Molina-Cruz also contends that the district court erred by not awarding him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Molina-Cruz did not qualify for this reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2; United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2004).
Molina-Cruz further contends that the procedural errors rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Molina-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 2 11-50546 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-50546