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,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR TIN LOPEZ-GONZALO,

De fe nda nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50384

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-05287-JM -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 Je ffre y T. M ille r, Se n ior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 4, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, SILVERM AN a nd FISHER , C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt M a rtin Lope z -Gonz a l o a

ppe a l s his 36-month se nte nc e for ille ga l re e ntry a fte r de porta t ion, 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in fa i ling to e xpre ssly c o nside r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, a

polic y sta te m e nt c o nc e rning “ de pa

rture s ba s e d on ina de qua c y 

# FIL ED JUL 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.of c rim ina l history .” 1 It is not c le ar that § 4A1.3 is a “pe rtine nt polic y

sta te m e nt” that the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to c onside r unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a)(5). Unlike the out-of-c irc uit c a se s tha t Lope zc ite s, Unite d State s v . Hodge , 469 F.3d 749 (8th C i r. 2006), a

nd Unite d State s v . Engle , 591 F.3d 495, the distric t c ourt’ s upwa rd va rian c e wa s not dire c t ly

c ontra ry to § 4A1.3. The

se nte nc ing tra

nsc ript indic ate s tha

t the distric t c ourt va

rie d upwa rds not be c a

u se he thought Lope z ’ s c rim ina l history c at e gory

unde rre p re se nte d

the se riousne ss of his c rim ina l history , but prim a rily be c a use Lope z ’ s prior 27-m onth se nte nc e fa ile d to de te r him from
c om m itting the

sa m e offe n s e six we e ks a fte r be ing re le a se d from prison. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not pla inly c om m it proc e dura l e rror. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in sente nc i ng Lope zto a n a bove -Guide line s, 36-m onth te rm of im prisonm e nt. Se eGall v . Unite d State s, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007) (“ [C ] ourts of a ppe a l m ust re vie w a ll se nte nc e s – whe the r inside , just outside , or signific antly outsidethe Guide line s ra nge – unde r a

de fe re ntia l
a buse -of-disc re tion sta

n d ard.” ); Unite d State

s v . Re ssam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1088 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba

nc ) (“ [R ] e vie w of the substa ntive re a sona

ble n e ss of a

se nte nc e is

1 W e re je c t Lope z ’ s argum e nt tha t pla in e rror re vie w doe s not a pply
. Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 51(b) is ina pplic a ble whe re , a s he re , the distric t c o urt offe re d num e rous opportunitie s during the se nte nc i ng he aring for Lope zto ra ise the issuehe now a ppe a ls. 2de fe re ntia l a nd will provide

re lie f only

in ra re c a se s.” ). The distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t de te rre n c e should begive n signific ant we ight is entitle d to de fe re nc e , se eUnite d

State s v . Gutie rre

z -Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009), a s is thedistric t c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt tha t the le ngth of Lope z ’ s prior 27-
m onth se nte nc e (re ga

rdle ss of its alle ge d fla

ws) did not ade quat e ly

de te r him

from
c om m itting the

sa m e c rim e only

six we e ks a fte r be ing re le a s e d from prison. Se e

, e .g. , id. at 908 (upholding a s re a sona ble the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e in light of the de fe nda nt’ s re pe ate d im

m igration viola

tions a nd the distric t c ourt’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t he wa s im

posing a se ve re se nte nc e tha

t would properly

inform the de fe nda

nt not to
re turn to theUnite d State s); c f. , Unite d State s v . Se gura-De l Re al , 83 F.3d 275, 277-78 (9th C ir. 1996) (upholding upwa rd de pa rture in light of re

pe titive im m igration viola

tions, whic h de m onstra

te d de fe nda nt’ s la c k of re c ognition of the grav ity of suc h offe nse s a

n d his prope nsity

to c ontinuec om

m itting them ). AFFIRM E D
.

3