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. M AR IO VALENZUELA-M OR ALES, a .k.a . M ario Higue ra -Va l e nzue la , a .k.a . M artin Va le nzue la

Ve rdugo, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10157

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01961-GM S 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 Kare n E. Sc hre i e r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 *** B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. M ario Va le nzue la -M ora l e s a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd 

# FIL ED FEB 26 2014 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 Honora

ble Ka re n E. Sc hre ie r, Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of South Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion. *** 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).c ha lle nge s the 46-m onth c ustodia l se nte nc e an d thre e -y e ar te rm of supe rvise d

re le a se im

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

of a re m ove d a lie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Va le nzue la -M ora l e s c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to c onside r the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd his mitiga

tion a rgum e nts and by fa iling to e xpla in a de quate ly the re a sons for thec ustodia l se nte nc e and supe rvise d-re le a s e te rm . W e re vie w for pla in e rror, se e Unite d State s v . Vale nc iaBarragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The re c ord re fle c ts that the distric t c ourt prope rly c onside re d

the se c tion 3553(a

) fa c tors, a de quate ly a ddre s se d Va le nzue la -M ora le s’ s m itiga tion a rgum e nts, a

n d provide d suffic ie nt re a s ons for these nt e nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). M o re ove r, the distric t c ourt’ s re a soning for im posing the s upe rvise d-re le a se te rm is a ppa re nt from the re c ord. Se eid. at 992 (“ [A] de quate e xpla

nation in some c a se s m ay a lso be infe rre d from

the PSR or the re c o rd a s a

whole .” ). Va le nzue la -M ora l e s a lso c onte nds tha t his se nte nc 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 Va le nzue la -M ora l e s’ s se nte nc e . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 1 3 - 1 0 1 5 7 2The c ustodia l se nt e nc e and supe rvise d-re le a se te rm are substa

ntive ly 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 l uding Va l e nzue la -M ora le s ’ s c rim ina l an d im m igrat ion history . Se e id. ; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 c m

t. n.5. Fina lly , Va le n z ue l a -M o ra le s c onte nds tha t the indic tm e nt wa s de fe c tive be c a use it did not a

lle ge his pre dic ate c onvic tion. Our c a se la wfore c lose s this c onte ntion. Se e Unite d State s v . Me ndoza-Zaragoza , 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 1 5 7 3