United States v. Alejandro Hernandez-Acosta

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50441 · 2014-07-29 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, William C. Canby, Jr.

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50441 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00829-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Hernandez-Acosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 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). Hernandez-Acosta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate properly the Sentencing Guidelines range. 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 accepted the parties’ agreed-upon Guidelines calculations, granted a fast-track departure and a minor role adjustment, and then varied upward in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. The district court did not err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Hernandez-Acosta also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hernandez-Acosta’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50441