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. AB R AHAM B UENO-M ER C ADO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10200

14-10343 D.C . No. 4:13-c r-50085-JGZ 4:13-cr-00930-JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, Abra

ham B ue n o-M e rc a d o a

ppe a ls the37-
m onth se nte nc e im

pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry

a fte r de porta tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326; a n d the six-m onth c onse c utive
se nte nc e im

pose d upon re voc ation of supervise d re l e a se . W e have jurisdic tion 

# FIL ED
SEP 01 2015 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).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291.

In Appe a l No. 14-10200, B ue no-M e rc a do c ha lle nge s his re v oc ation
se nte nc e , a

rguing tha

t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to c o nside r his mitiga tion a rgum e nts, fa ile d to e xpla in its sente nc e , and im pose d a substa ntive l y unre a s ona

ble se nte nc e . The re c ord re fle c ts tha

t the distric t c ourt c onside re d B ue no-M e rc a do’ s m itiga tion
argum e nts a

nd suffic ie ntly

e xpla ine d the se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in im

posing B u e no-M e rc a do’ s se nte nc e . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The se nte nc e is re a sona

ble in light of the

18 U.S.C
. § 3583(e ) fa c tors a

nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s. Se eGall , 552 U.S. a t 51. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

in Appe a l No. 14-10200. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t Appe a l No. 14-10343 should be dismisse d ba se d on a

n a ppe a l wa ive r c onta ine d in theple a a gre e m e nt. W e re vie w de novo whe the r to e nforc e an a

ppe a l wa ive r. Se e U

nite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th C i r. 2009). C ontra ry to B ue no-M e rc a do’ s c onte ntion, there c ord re fle c ts that the distric t c ourt prope rly a dvise d him

of the te rm s of the a

ppe a l wa ive r whe n it a c c e p te d his guilty

ple a . Se e id. at 987. M ore ove r, his se nte nc e is not ille ga l be c a use Alme ndare

z-Torre s v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), rem a ins good la w. Se e Alle

y nev . Unite d

State s , 133 S. C t. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (de c lining to

14
- 1 02 0 0 & 1 4
- 1 0 3 4 3 2re visit Alme ndare z -Torre s ). Ac c ordingly , we dismiss Appe a l No. 14-10343 in light of the

va lid a ppe a l wa ive r. Se eW

atson , 582 F.3d a

t 988. Appe a l No. 14-10200 AFFIRM E D. Appe a l No. 14-10343 DISMISSE D.

14
- 1 02 0 0 & 1 4
- 1 0 3 4 3 3