T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OR GE C OR DO VA - VI L L A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50007 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 04 38 7-B E N -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r1, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , F IS H E R an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J o r g e C o r d o v a - V illaap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e f o llo w in g ag u iltyp le ato as in g le c o u n t o f a tte m p tin g to e n te rth e U n ite dS ta te s a f te rb e in g p r e v io u s lyr e m o v e d . See



# FI LED SEP 13 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. A s the fa ct s are kn ow n t o the part i es , w e r epea tthem here on l y a s ne c e s s a ryt o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. I C ordo va-V i l l a f

i rs tcont ends thatthe se nt ence the di stri ctcourti m po se d w as s ubs t a nt i ve l ya nd pr oc e dur a l l yunr e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtj udge i m prop er l y c on si dere d h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory three t i m es i n sel ec t i ng a s ent ence ab o v e th e G u id e lin e s m in im u m . W e d is a g r e e . D is tr ic t c o u rts a r e e x p lic itly re qu i re d t o con si der “ the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ” w hen i m pos i ng as e nt e nc e . 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of C ordo va-V i l l a’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory f or m ore than o ne pu rpose und erthe G ui del i nes w a s p r o p e r . Se e U

ni te d State s v . Stote r au , 52 4 F . 3d 98 8, 10 01 (9th C i r. 20 08 ).

II A C o r d o v a - V illac o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yr e f u s in g to g r a n t a cont i nu ance . W e di sa gree . A tse nt enci ng , C ordo va-V i l l a r equest ed a c on t i nu ance t o s pe a k t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e aboutm i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e r e l a t e d t o dur e s s . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt m a d e c le a rth a t e v e n if C o r d o v a - V illad ids o , it w o u ldn o t im p a c t h is se n ten ce , an dn o ted th at th e c o u rt h ad alre ad y r ev iew ed C o rd o v a- V il la’s al l egat i on s of m i t i gat i ng evi dence i n a fi l i ng un der s ea l . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct3

courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng C ordo va-V i l l a’ s r equest ed c o n tin u a n c e . Se e U

n ite d S ta tes v . G a rr e tt , 179 F . 3d 1143, 1144–45 ( 9th C i r . 1999) (e n b anc) . B C o r d o v a - V illan e x t ar g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yr e ly in g o n h is p o s ta rr e s ts i l e nc e t o de nyhi s r e que s tf orar e duc e d s e nt e nc e ba s e d on m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e o f

d u r e s s . W e d is a g r e e . B e c au s e C o r d o v a - V illad idn o t r a is e th is o b je c tio n b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n f o rp la in e rr o r . Se e U

n ite d S ta tes v . R e n do n -D u a r te , 4 9 0 F .3 d1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . C ordo va-V i l l a’ s s ent ence w as un af fe ct ed by any pot ent i al l y i m prop eri nfer ence s d r a w n b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt. F o rth a t r e a s o n , C o r d o v a - V illa ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w er e notaf

fe ct ed, no r w er e the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s . Se e U

ni te d State s v . O lano , 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 2 (19 93 ).

II I C ordo va-V i l l a’ s f

i nal cl ai m i s thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed the pri nci pl e s et f orth i n App re nd iv. N

ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ), by i m po si ng a s ent ence that v io la te dth e p a r s im o n yp r in c ip le e m b e d d e din s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e r e je c t th is c l a i m be c aus e i ti s di r e c t l yf or e c l os e d byourde c i s i on i n U ni ted States v. Cha vez , 61 1 F . 3d 10 06 , 10 09 –1 0 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( per c uri am ).4 IV F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.