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. R AUL B ANUELOS-ESTR ADA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50062

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-02952-GT-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 Gordon Thom

pson, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s a nd B LOC K, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 10 2016 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). *** The Honora

ble Fre de ric B loc k, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne wYork, sitting by de signa tion.R a

ul B anue los-Estra da , a

c itiz e n of M e xic o, wa s se nte nc e d to thirty m onths’ im prisonm e nt for ille ga l re e ntry , in viola tion of 8 U.S.C
. § 1326. Hea ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s a s se ssm e nt of his c rim i na l history , se e U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), a nd the
re a s ona ble ne s s of his se nte nc e . W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt a s se sse d B anue los-Estra da two c rim i na l history

(“ C H” ) points for be ing unde r a c rim ina l justic e se nte n c e , U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), be c a use he ha d not c om

p le te d a se nte nc e from

a prior Ne va da sta

te c onvic tion, for whic h a n outsta nding be n c h wa

rrant wa s issue d. B anue los-Estra da argue s tha

t he c ould not have re sponde d to theoutsta nding be nc h wa

rrant be c a use he wa s inc a

rc e rate d at the t im e it wa s issue d. Howe v e r, the two C H points we re not im pose d for B anue los-Estra da ’ s fa ilure to re spond to the be nc h wa

rrant. R athe r, the points
we re im pose d be c a

use the unde rly ing se nte nc e wa s not c o m ple te whe n he re e nte re d the Unite d State s ; the outsta nding be n c h

wa rrant m e re ly

c onfirm s tha

t fa c t. The distric t c ourt a l so im

pose d a n a dditional C H point pursua nt to § 4A1.1(c ) due to a

prior m i sde m e anor posse ssion c onvic t ion for whic h B anue losEstra da re c e ive d a

suspe n de d se nte nc e . He wa s la te r he ld in c onte m

pt for fa iling to
c om ply with thec onditions of this se nte nc e . Although B anue los-Estra d a argue s that the distric t c ourt e rre d by a sse s sing a

C H point for his be ing he ld in c onte m pt, the C H point wa s not for c onte m pt, but for theunde rly ing m isde m e anor. Se e U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(f) (“ A dive rsiona ry disposition re sulting from a finding ora dm ission of guilt . . . is c ounte d a s a se nte nc e unde r § 4A1.1(c )” ); Unite d State s v . Franc o-Flore

s , 558 F.3d 978, 981 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [D] e fe n da nts who re c e ive the be ne fit of a

re ha bilita tive s e nte nc e and c o ntinue to c om m it c rim e s should not be tre ate d with furthe r le nie nc y .” ). The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion whe n de ny ing B a

n u e los-Estra da
an e v ide ntia

ry he aring a

t se nte nc ing. Unite d State s v . Laurie nti , 731 F.3d 967, 972 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [T] h e re is no ge ne ra l right to a n e vide ntia

ry he aring a t
se nte nc ing. W

he n a de fe nda

nt dispute s a fa c t re le va

nt to se nte nc i ng, the distric t
c ourt ne e d only

provide the pa

rtie s a re a sona ble opportunity to pre s e nt inform ation to the c ourt.” (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). B anue los-Estra da
wa s pe rm itte d am

ple opportunity

to re b ut the pre -se nte nc e re p ort’ s c rim ina l-history findings, whic h he did in a writte n obje c tion a

nd a rgum e nt a t se nte nc ing. The
e vide nc e e s ta

blishing B anue l os-Estra da ’ s C H points wa s suffic ie ntly re lia ble for
se nte nc ing purpose s . Se eUnite d State s v . Fe lix , 561 F.3d 1036, 1042–43 (9th C ir. 2009). La stly , B anue los-Estra d a ’ s se nte nc e of thirty m onths’ im

prisonm e nt is substa ntive ly re a sona ble . The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to sente nc e B anue l osEstra da a bove his c a lc ulate d guide line s ra nge of e ighte e n to twe nty -four m onths is supporte d by B an

ue los-Estra da ’ s e xte nsive c rim ina l history . B anue los-Estra da ha s be e n de porte d four tim e s sinc e 1999 a nd the insta

nt c o nvic tion is his third forille g a l re e ntry unde r § 1326. Additiona lly , B anue los-Estra da

ha s an e x te nsive
c rim ina l history , whic h inc lude s a num be r of batte ry

c onvic t ions. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

im posing a n a b ove -guide line s se nte nc e of thirty m onths. AFFIRM E D
.