Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0841-01.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. Julio Cesar SANCHEZ-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50583.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
    Victor Pablo White, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Hanni Meena Fakhoury, Esquire, Trial, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Cesar Sanchez-Valenzuela appeals from the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for attempted entry after deportation and fraud and misuse of an identity document to gain entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326 & 1546(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez-Valenzuela contends that the district court failed to give an adequate explanation for the sentence it imposed and thereby committed procedural error. We review for plain error because Sanchez-Valenzuela did not object to the district court’s alleged failure to sufficiently explain the sentence imposed. See United States v. Sylvester Norman Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). The district court’s explanation was sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Accordingly, there was no error, let alone plain error. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Sanchez-Valenzuela also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court refused to reduce his sentence further despite the fact that his prior conviction that added 16 levels to his Guidelines calculation was twelve years old. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the district court’s concerns about Sanchez-Valenzuela’s “rather continual criminality” and the short timeframe between his release from prison and the instant offense, the nine month below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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