United States v. Rene Arias-Robles
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene ARIAS-ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Harry Pregerson (author), Fletcher, Jacqueline H. Nguyen
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50434 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03587-DMS-1 v. MEMORANDUM * RENE ARIAS-ROBLES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 4, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rene Arias-Robles appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level increase under the sentencing guidelines for a prior conviction that was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. S. Ct. 1473 (2010), and by imposing a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arias-Robles cannot challenge his prior conviction in this proceeding because he was represented by counsel at the time. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 496 (1994); see also United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal, 700 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the record does not support Arias- Robles’s contention that his former counsel failed to advise him before he pled guilty in the Texas case that deportation was a certain—as opposed to possible—consequence of that plea.
The district court did not err in enhancing Arias-Robles’s sentence based on the Texas conviction. At the time of Arias-Robles’s sentencing in this case, the Texas conviction was final. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003).
His postconviction motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is considered a collateral proceeding. See id. at 524–25.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.