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. JAIM E VIC ENTE C AB A LLER O, a .k.a . Ja im e Vic e nte C a

ba l le Aguila

r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10555

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00318-R S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Ja im e Vic e nte C a

ba lle ro a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 24-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED AUG 18 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . C a ba lle ro c onte nds tha

t thedistric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to a ddre s s his a

rgum e nt tha

t theille ga l re e ntry

guide line , U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, lac ks a sound e m piric a l or polic y ba sis, a

nd by fa iling to a

ppre c iate its disc re tion under K imbrough v. Unite d State

s , 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to va ry downwa rd from the a pplic a ble Guide line s range on polic y grounds. C ontra

ry to C a ba lle ro’ s c onte ntion, were vie w for pla in e rror be c a use he did not raise the se obje c tions in the d istric t c o urt. Se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th C ir. 2010). W e find none . The re c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt c onside re d C a

ba lle ro’ s se nte nc ing m e m o randum , whic h c onta ine d his K i mbrough ba se d c ha lle nge s to theGuide line . C a b a l le ro ha s not shown a

re a sona ble proba b ility tha t he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e ha d the distric t c ourt e xplic itly a ddre sse d his K

imbrough argum e nts. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th C ir. 2008). C a ba lle ro a lso m a i nta ins tha t, a lthough the

distric t c o urt c re d ite d his m itiga ting a rgum e nts re ga

rding his cultura l a ssimila tion a nd re ha bilita tion, his se nte nc e is ne ve rthe le ss substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c o urt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in im

posing C a

ba l le ro’ s se nte nc e . S

e eGall v . Unite d State

s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). C a b a lle ro’ s se nte nc e 17 m onths be low thebottom of the 1 3 - 1 0 5 5 5 2Guide line s ra nge is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c t ors a

nd thetota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding thene e d

to de te r and to re fle c t

the se riousne ss of theoffe nse . Se eid. The c ourt ha s not re lie d on theStat e m e nt of R e a s ons, a nd we de ny

the m otion to strike . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 5 5 5 3