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 ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR IO R

AYM OND FER

NANDEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50118

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-04992-LAB -1 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 Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 18, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. M ario R aym ond Fe rnan de 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 transporta tion of ille ga l a lie ns a

nd a iding a

nd a be tting, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 

# FIL ED MAR 11 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 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1324(a )(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Fe rnande z c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt im

pose d a substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble se nte nc e be c a

u s e it va rie d a bove the Se nte nc ing Guide line s ba se d on an e rrone ous infe re n c e tha t he influe n c e d

his c o-de fe nda

nt to be c o m e involve d in the o ffe nse . To the e xte nt Fe rna nde z c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tfinding a nd ra ise s a due proc e ss issue , we re vie w for pla in e rror be c a use he did not ra ise the se issue s in the distric t c ourt. S e e Unite d State

s v . C h riste n se n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2013); s e e also Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (c ha ra c te riz ing the se le c tion of a se nte nc e ba se d on e rrone ous fa c ts a s a proc e dura l e rror). W e find no plain e rror a ffe c ting substa ntia l rights. Se e C

hriste nse n , 732 F.3d at 1101-02. Fe rnande z sugge sts tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his right to rem a in sile nt be c a use the c o urt c o m

m e nte d tha

t he ha d ne ithe r a dm i tte d nor de nie d influe nc ing M onta no to ge t involve d in theoffe nse . The re wa s no e rror be c a u se the c ourt wa s not dra wing a n a dve rse infe re nc e from

Fe rnande z ’ s sile nc e , but inste a d wa s disc ussing whe the r the re wa s a d ditiona l e vide nc e to c onfirm or c ounte r othe r e vide nc e c o nc e rning whe the r Fe rnande z ha d influe nc e d his c o-de fe nda nt. C f. Unite d State s v . Rome ro-Re ndon , 220 F.3d 1159, 1163 n.4 (9th C ir. 2000). 2Fe rnande z c onte nds tha t the 36-m o nth se nte nc e is substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble be c a use the distric t c o urt ove rstate d the ne e d to prote c t the public and be c a use his pa rtic i pation in a

GED progra

m and drug tre atm e nt progra m while in prison will ade quate ly a d d re ss his m otive s to offe nd a nd the re fore will a ddre ss a ny c onc e rns a

bout thene e d for de te rre nc e . W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion, e xam ining the se nte nc e in light of the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s a n d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors. Se e Gall v . Unite d State s, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion. Thea b ove -Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a nd the tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s, inc luding Fe rnande z ’ s history of drug a buse an d fa i le d drug tre atm e nt a

nd his history

of sm uggling alie ns e ve n a fte r se rving a tota l of 35 m onths in prison in c onne c tion with a pre vious c o nvic tion for tra nsporting alie ns. Se e Gall, 552 U.S. a

t 51; se e also Unite d State s v . Gutie rre

z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908-09 (9th C ir. 2009) (re c ogniz ing tha t the “ we ight to begive n the va rious fa c t ors in a

pa rtic ula r c a se is for the disc re tion of thedistric t c ourt” and holding that the distric t c ourt did not plac e undue we ight on ne e d for de te rre nc e whe re de fe nda nt re pe ate dly

c om m itte d im m igrat ion offe nse s); Unite d State s v . Higue raLlamos , 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th C ir. 2009) (re c ogniz ing tha t it wa s prope r to im pose a gre ate r se nte nc e in orde r to prote c t the public from de fe nda nt’ s prove n 3willingne ss to re -offe nd a nd tha t it wa s prope r whe n de te rm ining se nte nc e for ne w im m igration offe nse t o c onside r whe the r a se nte n c e for a

prior im m igration offe nse ha d se rve d a s an a de quate de te rre nt). AFFIRM E D .

4