United States v. Juventino Sandoval-Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30029 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00142-TOR v. MEMORANDUM* JUVENTINO SANDOVAL-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Juventino Sandoval-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sandoval-Lopez argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence and address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors sufficiently, and by treating the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Sandoval-Lopez’s sentencing arguments and adequately explained its reasons for selecting a within-Guidelines term. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s sentencing remarks indicate that it considered the section 3553(a) factors. See id. (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them”). Finally, the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and noted the advisory nature of the Guidelines. Sandoval-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Sandoval-Lopez’s significant criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 17-30029 17-30029 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. United States v. Juventino Sandoval-Lopez 20 November 2017 Criminal Unpublished b715505a326c9b1de94b82c312ba5bf0dbb5d8d8

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals