Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cruz Flechita Ramon SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-02
Citations: 698 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 16-30236
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cruz Flechita Ramon SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cruz Flechita Ramon SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30236
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
Filed October 2, 2017
Syrena Case Hargrove, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA-— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID) Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Cruz Flechita Ramon Soto appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for assault resulting in serious bodily injury committed within Indian Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) and 1153, and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
For the first time on appeal, Soto contends that the district court failed to address adequately the nature and circumstances of the offense, and his history and characteristics. The court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the court considered Soto's arguments and concluded that, notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances cited by Soto, an upward variance was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Soto next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed,2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Soto's criminal history and the victim's permanent, debilitating injury. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.