N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSE IGNAC IO HER

NANDEZGUZM AN, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10374

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00069-R C J -VPC -1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C . Jone s, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 11, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B EN NETT, *** Distric t Judge . 

# F IL ED SEP 15 2017 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 tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.1. De fe nda nt Jose Igna c io He rnande z -Guz m an a ppe a ls the 20-m onth se nte nc e he re c e ive d for be ing a n a lie n ille ga lly

or unla wfully in the Unite d State s in posse ssion of a

fire arm , unde r 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(5)(A), a rguing tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e wa s both proc e dura lly and substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . B e c a use He rnande z -Guz m an did not raise be low is a rgum e nt tha

t the se nte nc e wa s proc e dura lly unre a sona

ble , we re vie w for pla i n e rror. Unite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C i r. 2010). To e sta blish plain e rror, (1) the re m

ust be an “ e rror or de fe c t,” (2) the “ e rror m ust be c l e ar or obvious, ra the r tha n subje c t to re a sona

ble dispute ,” (3) the “ e rror m ust ha ve a ffe c t e d the a ppe lla nt’ s substa

ntia l rights, whic h in the ordina ry c a s e m e ans he m

u st de m onstra

te tha t it ‘ a ffe c te d

the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings,’ ” and (4) if the a

bove thre e prongs a

re satisfie d, this c o urt ha s the disc re tion to re m e dy the e rror “ only

if the e rror ‘ se riously

a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.’ ” Puc k e tt v . Unite d State

s , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (quoting Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734, 736 (1993)). W e re vie w the substa

ntive re a sona

ble ne ss c la im

for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Aute ry , 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th C ir. 2009).

2He rnande z -Guz m an a rgue s tha t his se nte nc e wa s proc e dura lly unre a sona

ble be c a use of the distric t c ourt’ s c om m e nts a bout his de

porta tion sta tus 1 The distric t c ourt did not c om

m i t pla in e rror, by

obse rving tha

t it wa s unc le ar whe t

he r He rnande z -Guz m an would bede porte d. M ore ove r, He rnande z -Guz m an ha s not shown a re a sona b le proba bility tha t he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e a bse nt this al l e ge d e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1103- 06 (9th C ir. 2013). 2. He rnande z -Guz m an a rgue s tha t the distric t

c o urt proc e dura l ly

e rre d by fa iling to addre ss the m itiga ting e vide nc e of his “ tra

um atic and viole nt pa st.” W e re vie wfor pla in e rror, se e Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d a t 1108, a nd c onc lude that the re is none . The distric t c ourt liste ne d to He rnande z -Guz m an’ s a rgum e nts, sta te d tha t it ha d re vie we d the c rite ria se t forth forth in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a), and sta te d its re a s ons for va

ry i ng m inim a lly

upwa rd from the Guide line s ra

nge . ts

1 The c ourt gra

n ts He rnande z -Guz m an’ s m o t ion for judic ia l notic e of transc ripts from

c rim i na l se nte nc ing he arings involving undoc um e nte d im m igra nts in whic h the distric t c ourt ha s c om m e nte d on e x e c utive de p ortat ion polic ie s. Dkt. #5-1, M ot. For Judic i a l Notic e . On a p pe a l, this c ourt m ay

ta ke judic ia l notic e of doc um e nts “ not subje c t

to re a sona

ble dispute . ” Trigue ros v . Adams , 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C i r. 2011) (quoting F E D . R . E V I D . 201(b)). Although som e of the distric t c ourt's c om

m e n ts a re de e p ly troubling, c om

m e nts in other c a s e s c annot a lone support a c la im of proc e dura l e rror in He rnande z -Guz m an's se nte nc ing. 3fa ilure to do m ore doe s not c onstitute pla in e rror. S

e eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). 3 . He rnande z -Guz m an a rgue s tha t the distric t

c o urt proc e dura l ly

e rre d by re ly ing on c le arly

e rrone o us fa c tua l findings, inc luding a finding tha

t He rnande z -Guz m an wa s “ willing”to shoot othe r pe o ple . The distric t c ourt’ s finding wa s ba se d on a

n a lle ge d ge sture He rnande z -Guz m an m a de towa rd his wa ist whe n que stione d by polic e a bout whe t he r he wa s c arry ing a

we a pon. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t

c ourt did not pla

inly e rr. Although the

ge sture wa s susc e ptibleto c om

pe ting interpre tations, thedistric t c ourt's a sse ssm e nt of its m e aning is not “ illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in the re c ord.” Se e Unite d State s v . Fitc h , 659 F.3d 788, 797 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting U nite d State

s v . Spangle , 626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th C ir. 2010)). 4. He rnande z -Guz m an c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura l ly e rre d whe n it im

pose d his te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se . He rnande z -Guz m an a rgue s tha t , be c a use the Guide line s sta

te tha t the se n te nc ing c o urt “ ordina rily should not im pose a te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se ,” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c ), the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to e xpla i n its de viation from the Guide l ine s re c o m

m e n dation. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t

c ourt did not pla

inly e rr. C ontra

ry to He rnande z -Guz m an’ s c onte ntion, the re c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t

c ourt prope rly 4ba se d the te rm of supe rvise d re le a se on its c onc e rns a bout theda

nge r He rnande z -Guz m an pose d to thec om m unity . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(c ). 5. Fina lly , He rnande z -Guz m an a rgue s tha t his se nte n c e is unre a sona ble . A se nte nc ing judgeis in a supe rior position to m

ake fa c tua l de te rm inations a nd e va luate the ir im

port unde r § 3553(a ), Unite d State s v . Ov e r ton , 573 F.3d 679, 700 (9th C ir. 2009), a

n d only a proc e dura lly

e rrone ous or substa

ntive l y unre a sona

ble se nte nc e will be se t a side . Se e C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993. He re , the distric t c ourt a de quate ly

c onside re d

the se nte nc ing fa c tors in § 3553(a ) and e xpla ine d

its re a sons for its se nte nc e . The se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the § 3553(a ) fa c t ors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s. AFFIRM ED.

5