Case ID: f-appx_617/html/0807-01.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. Cristobal ESCOBAR-VASQUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Leonel Bueso-Vasquez, a.k.a. Cristobal Colon, a.k.a. Bueso Leonel Jose, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50398.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Brandon James Kimura, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Leonel, Bueso-Vasquez, John David Kirby, Law Office of John D. Kirby Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cristobal Escobar-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Escobar-Vasquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) focusing on deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (ii) failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments. We' review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record 'reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Escobar-Vasquez’s mitigating arguments, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Escobar-Vasquez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation, the staleness of his prior criminal history, and the minor nature of his reentry offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Escobar-Vasquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Escobar-Vasquez’s prior removals and failure to be deterred. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 9; Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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