Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0613-01.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. Victor Manuel LOPEZ-MORALES, a.k.a. Victor Manuel Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10564, 14-10565
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael L. Burke, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defenders Office (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Victor Manuel Lopez-Morales appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C, § 1326, as well as the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Morales contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that his cultural assimilation warranted a below-Guidelines sentence, and by referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3653(a) at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. 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 Lopez-Morales’s argument concerning his assimilation, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, there is no indication that the court committed plain error by mentioning section 3553(a).

Lopez-Morales also contends that his sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the applicable sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez-Morales’s criminal history, his multiple prior removals, and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.