Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel ESCOBAR, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 16-50062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel ESCOBAR, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel ESCOBAR, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50062
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 21, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Michael Gregory Freedman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Juan Manuel Escobar appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. •§ 1326.
Escobar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his request for a downward departure for cultural assimilation and his other mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there was none. The record reflects that the court considered Escobar's arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for concluding that a mid-range sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Escobar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the district court's denial of the cultural assimilation departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Escobar's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Escobar's criminal history and the need for deterrence. 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.