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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. OSC AR JAVIER NOLASC O-TELLEZ, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50511

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01835-DM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Osc ar Javie r Nola sc o-Te lle z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd
c ha lle nge s the 36-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for be ing a re m ove d a lie n found in the Unite d State s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C § 1326. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
DEC 20 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).Nola sc o-Te l le z c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura l ly e rre d by fa iling to c o nside r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. W e re vie w for pla in e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th C i r. 2010), a

nd find none
. The distric t c ourt did not de pa rt upwa rd on the ba sis tha

t Nola sc o-Te lle z ’ s c rim ina l history c ate gory wa s ina d e quat e . Ac c ordingly , se c t ion 4A1.3 wa s not a “ pe rtine nt polic y sta te m e nt” that the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to c onside r unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 3553(a)(5). Nola sc o-Te l le z ne xt c onte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32(h) by im posing a n a bove -Guide line s se nte nc e without providing prior notic e . C ontra ry to Nola sc o-Te lle z ’ s c onte ntion, there c ord re fle c ts that the distric t c ourt im

pose d a n upwa rd va rianc e ba s e d on the18 U.S.C
. § 3553(a) fa c tors. Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt wa s not re quire d to provide notic e unde r R

ule 32(h). Se eUnite d State s v . Mosc h e lla , 727 F.3d 888, 893 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ A distric t c o urt is not re quire d unde r R ule 32(h) to givea dva

nc e notic e be fore im

posing a se nte nc e outsideof the a dvisory guide line range if the
se nte nc e is there sult of a v a rianc e .” ). Fina lly , Nola sc o-Te lle z c onte nds tha t his se nte n c e is substa

ntive l y
unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing Nola sc o-Te lle z ’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

1 5
- 5 0 5 1 1 2The a

bove -Guide l ine s se nte nc e is substa ntive l y re a sona ble in light of the

se c tion 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc luding Nola sc o-Te lle z ’ s c rim ina l a nd im m igration history

a s we ll a s his fa ilure to be de te rre d by

prior se nte n c e s. Se eUnite d State s v . Burgos-Orte

ga , 777 F.3d 1047, 1056–57 (9th C ir. 2015). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 5 0 5 1 1 3