Opinion ID: 4681319
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal History Determination

Text: Figueroa-Beltran contends that the district court procedurally erred when it determined that his criminal history included charges for sale of a controlled substance. Figueroa-Beltran maintains that the district court clearly erred by speculating that the state dismissed pending charges due to Figueroa-Beltran’s imminent removal from the United States. Because Figueroa-Beltran did not object to the district court’s criminal history determination during the sentencing hearing, we review this issue under the plain error standard. See United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “[p]lain error review applies to sentencing objections first raised on appeal”) (citation omitted). The district court did not plainly err in its characterization of Figueroa-Beltran’s criminal history based on its reasonable inference that prosecution of the controlled 5 Because the propriety of the sentencing enhancement imposed by the district court is clear based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s response to our certified question and the documents of conviction already referenced the record, we DENY the pending motions for judicial notice and decline to expand the record on appeal. UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN 19 substance charge filed on May 13, 2013, was dismissed due to Figueroa-Beltran’s pending removal from the United States on June 4, 2013. In addition, Figueroa-Beltran fails to demonstrate that the district court’s determination “affected [his] substantial rights,” as required under plain error review. Id. (citation and alteration omitted). The district court properly considered Figueroa-Beltran’s extensive criminal history, including several charges involving possession of controlled substances, in imposing a sentence at the low end of the guidelines’ range. In any event, the district court’s determination premised on Figueroa-Beltran’s criminal history was an alternative to application of the sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Because we have concluded that application of the sixteen-level enhancement was proper, the district court’s alternative conclusions concerning Figueroa-Beltran’s criminal history do not affect the outcome of this appeal. See United States v. Hernandez-Valenzuela, 932 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1991) (declining to remand for resentencing because “[t]he district court made clear that the grounds [for its sentencing decision] were alternative, not cumulative”).