Case ID: f-appx_451/html/0660-01.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. Francisco Rey SANDOVAL-BUSTAMANTE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
    Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant U.S., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter A. Matiatos, Law Office of Peter A. Matiatos, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Rey Sandoval-Bustamante appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sandoval-Bustamante contends that the district court erred by: (1) failing to identify the legal standard it used in denying his motion to continue sentencing for a psychological evaluation; (2) failing to adequately explain its decision to deny a departure for cultural assimilation; and (3) awarding only a two-level downward departure for imperfect duress under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Sandoval-Bustamante also contends the government’s refusal to move for a third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b), was arbitrary and capricious. The government’s decision not to move for the third point was rational and not arbitrary, as Sandoval-Bustamante did not waive his right to appeal. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.2009).

We grant Sandoval-Bustamante’s motion to file a late brief. We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Sandoval-Bustamante’s reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).

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