gno.law

United States v. Francisco Gastelum-Campa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50308 · 2014-12-16 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GASTELUM-CAMPA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
William T. Wallace (author), Jay S. Bybee, Edward Leavy

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2014

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50308 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03433-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* FRANCISCO GASTELUM-CAMPA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Gastelum-Campa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for making a false claim to United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911.

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). Gastelum-Campa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. Specifically, he argues that the district court failed to (1) explain why it rejected his argument that the mitigating factors justified a sentence of time served, (2) explain why the Guidelines range was inadequate, and (3) provide a meaningful justification for the extent of the variance 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 adequately explained the sentence, including its reasons for rejecting Gastelum-Campa’s arguments in support of a within- Guidelines sentence and for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Gastelum-Campa also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).

The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to deter and to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50308

Cites, in this corpus