Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo MATIAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 904
Docket Number: No. 15-10341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo MATIAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 904–904

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo MATIAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10341
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
August 02, 2016
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Robert Kilburn, Kilburn Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Domingo Matias-Perez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 54-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Matias-Perez contends that the district court proeedurally erred by improperly considering the fact that he rejected a fast-track plea agreement, failing to address his mitigating arguments, and failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Matias-Perez's mitigating arguments and explained the sentence sufficiently. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the record does not support Matias-Perez's contention that the district court improperly considered Matias-Perez's rejection of the fast-track agreement or that it based the sentence on a policy of imposing harsher sentences for illegal reentry defendants who reject such agreements.
Matias-Perez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Matias-Perez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Matias-Perez's criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) ("The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.