gno.law

United States v. Cesar Flores-Montiel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50036, 15-50038 · 2015-09-01 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Francisco FLORES-MONTIEL, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Mary M. McKeown (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 1 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 15-50036 15-50038 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:13-cr-00377-LAB v. 3:14-cr-02271-LAB CESAR FRANCISCO MEMORANDUM* FLORES-MONTIEL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Cesar Francisco Flores-Montiel appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the eight-month custodial * 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). sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores-Montiel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the 24-month sentence imposed for his new criminal conviction. This claim fails. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Flores-Montiel next contends that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Flores-Montiel’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The term of supervised release and the below-Guidelines custodial sentence are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Flores-Montiel’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;

United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50036 & 15-50038

Cites, in this corpus