Case ID: f-appx_557/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VALENZUELA-MORALES, a.k.a. Mario Higuera-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Martin Valenzuela Verdugo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10157.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18,. 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Mark J. Wenker, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Valenzuela-Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valenzuela-Morales contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) sentencing factors and his mitigation arguments and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the custodial sentence and supervised-release term. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valenciar-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1108, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, adequately addressed Valenzuela-Morales’s mitigation arguments, and provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s reasoning for imposing the supervised-release term is apparent from the record. See id. at 992 (“[Ajdequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).

Valenzuela-Morales also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valenzuela-Morales’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The custodial sentence and supervised-release term are substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valenzuela-Morales’s criminal and immigration history. See id.; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.

Finally, Valenzuela-Morales contends that the indictment was defective because it did not allege his predicate conviction. Our case law forecloses this contention. See United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.