NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ESEQUIEL DE JESUS GONZALEZ

ORCINO

,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50229

D.C. No.

2:15

- cr

- 00020

- PA

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Percy Anderson , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 2, 2017 **
Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE

, District Judge

. ***

Esequiel de Jesus Gonzalez Orcino appeals his sentence following his guilty

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Benjamin H . Settle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

plea to unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

. Specifically, he argues that the

district court failed to properly calculate his criminal history points, thereby

placing him in criminal history category IV instead of III. Because Gonzalez

Orcino failed to preserve any of his arguments below, we review for plain error.

See United States v. Guzman

- Mata , 57 9 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009 ).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

1. The district court properly assessed Gonzalez Orcino two criminal history

points for committing the instant offense while on parole. See U.S.S.G. §

4A1.1(d). Alt hough a § 1326 violation is considered a “continuing offense [,]

. . .

the offense commences with the illegal entry.” United States v. Reyes

- Pacheco

,

248 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2001) (int ernal citations omitted)

. Gonzalez Orcino

admitted to re entering the country without permission in February 2007 when he

was on parole. Contrary to his arguments on appeal, the February 2007

co mmission date has been reliably shown since Gonzalez Orcino a dmitted to this

date at sentencing.

2. The district court also properly assessed one c riminal history point for

Gonzalez Orcino’s 2003 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 422

because it occurred “within ten years of the defendant’s commencement of the

instant [illegal reentry ] offense ” in February 2007. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2)

(emphasis added)

.3

3. The district court properly a ssess ed one point for Gonzalez Orcino’s 2014

drug possession offense

. Gonzalez Orcino pled guilty to vio lating California

Health and Safety Code § 11377 and was off ered a drug diversion program. The

record reflects that he failed to appear at a subsequent hearing but does not show

that he was ever sentenced for this crime

. T he Sentencing Guidelines , howeve r, do

not require the imposition of a sentence for this offense to be counted under section

4A1.1(c) . U.S.S.G. § 4A 1. 2(a)(4). Moreover, even if he had successfully

completed the diversion program , a “diversionary disposition resulting from a

finding or a dmission of guilt . . . in a judicial proceeding” may also be considered

under the Guidelines . U.S.S.G. § 4A 1

. 2(f).

AFFIRMED.