Opinion ID: 4681319
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural And Substantive Reasonableness Of

Text: The Sentence
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”).
Figueroa-Beltran asserts that the district court failed to adequately consider his personal history. Figueroa-Beltran maintains that leniency was warranted because he lacked prior convictions for illegal reentry and was never convicted of a violent offense. However, the district court fully considered Figueroa-Beltran’s personal and criminal histories, which included numerous arrests and pending charges for possession of controlled substances. 20 UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN
Guidelines Figueroa-Beltran submits that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court declined to apply proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, and the district court failed to adequately consider FigueroaBeltran’s particular history. In 2016, the Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to illegal reentry offenses under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, including: a new tiered enhancement based on prior convictions for illegal reentry offenses under 8 U.S.C. 1253, 1325(a), or 1326. A defendant who has one or more felony illegal reentry convictions will receive an increase of 4 levels. Illegal reentry offense is defined in the commentary to include all convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1253 (failure to depart after an order of removal) and 1326 (illegal reentry), as well as second or subsequent illegal entry convictions under § 1325(a). A defendant who has two or more misdemeanor illegal entry convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) will receive an increase of 2 levels. Notice of submission to Congress of amendments to the sentencing guidelines effective November 1, 2016, United States Sentencing Commission, 81 Fed. Reg. 27262, 27272 (May 5, 2016). The Sentencing Commission explained that: UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN 21 The amendment reduces somewhat the level of enhancements for criminal conduct occurring before the defendant’s first order of deportation and adds a new enhancement for criminal conduct occurring after the defendant’s first order of deportation. It also responds to concerns that prior convictions for illegal reentry offenses may not be adequately accounted for in the existing guideline by adding an enhancement for prior illegal reentry and multiple prior illegal entry convictions. Id. We have recognized that “[a] sentencing court . . . has the discretion to grant a variance from the Guidelines after promulgation but before adoption of a proposed amendment.” United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]hat the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively unreasonable.” Id. at 918 (citation omitted). The district court, therefore, was not compelled to apply the anticipated amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 in fashioning a substantively reasonable sentence. See id. (“[W]here an amendment has been promulgated but has not yet been adopted, district courts are not required to consider that amendment in the § 3553 analysis . . .”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original). 22 UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN