gno.law

United States v. Gabriel Fuentes-Rojas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50165 · 2015-03-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel FUENTES-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Joseph J. Farris (author), Richard A. Paez, Kim M. Wardlaw

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50165 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02563-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* GABRIEL FUENTES-ROJAS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Fuentes-Rojas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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). Fuentes-Rojas contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1)

relying on an improper sentencing factor; (2) focusing on deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and (3) failing to address adequately his policy argument. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find no error. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and did not rely on an impermissible factor. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the [sentencing] factors to show that it has considered them.”). In addition, the district court listened to Fuentes-Rojas’s mitigating arguments and recognized its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-753 (9th Cir. 2011).

Fuentes-Rojas also contends that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Fuentes-Rojas’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 526 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to deter. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50165

Cites, in this corpus