N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAIM E HER

RER A-R AM O S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10156

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00054-HDM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Ja im e He rre ra -R am os a

p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 77-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for ille g a l re e ntry , in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).He rre ra -R am os c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt proc e dura lly

e rre d by fa iling to c o nside r that he lost theopportunity to be ne fit from

a fa st-tra c k ple a

a gre e m e nt. W e re vie wfor pla in e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale n c ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd find none . The distric t c ourt wa s a ware tha t the gove rnm e nt offe re d a

prior, m ore favora

ble ple a , a

nd the c ourt provide d

de fe nse c ounse l with the opportunity to disc uss the spe c ific de t a ils of thelost fa st-tra c k ple a offe r. Additionally , to thee xte nt He rre ra -R am os c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to re c o g niz e its a uthority to va ry from the Guide line s ra

nge , the re c ord doe s not support this c onte ntion. He rre ra -R am os a lso c onte nds tha t the se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble be c a use it is ba se d on a

16-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b), whic h la c ks a ny e m p i ric a l ba s is a

nd re sults in a

disproportionally

high se nte nc e . The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in im

posing He rre ra -R am os’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d

State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The bottom -of-the -Guide line s se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a nd the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, inc luding He rre ra -R am os’ s viole nt c rim ina l history an d c ultura l a ssim ila

tion. Se eid .; se e also United State s v . Ramire

z Garc ia , 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th C ir. 2001) (re c ogniz ing the16-le ve l

1 3 - 1 0 1 5 6 2e nha

nc e m e nt re fle c ts C ongre ss’ s inte nt to inc re a s e pe na ltie s for a lie ns with prior c onvic tions in order to de te r othe rs). Fina lly , He rre ra -R am os’ s c ha lle nge to the use of the prior c onvic tion to e nha nc e his se nte nc e is fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Be ng-Salazar , 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 1 5 6 3