Court Opinion

ID: 4276241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-17 20:00:32.873968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:54.654315
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 17 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-10231

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:16-cr-02040-CKJ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
FERNANDO SANDOVAL-GARCIA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before:      SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Fernando Sandoval-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 20-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.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Sandoval-Garcia contends that the district court erred procedurally by

varying upward without sufficiently explaining its reasons for doing so. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court noted

Sandoval-Garcia’s two prior felonies and concluded that the sentencing factors,

including deterrence and promotion of respect for the law, warranted a variance.1

      Sandoval-Garcia also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is

substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court’s upward variance

was improper because it rested in part on a 2007 sexual-assault conviction, the

details of which he alleges were insufficiently established by available

documentation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Sandoval-Garcia’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The district court focused on the fact of the sexual-assault conviction itself, and

discounted the importance of the particular details that Sandoval-Garcia alleges

were inadequately documented. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Sandoval-Garcia’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

1
 We do not reach Sandoval-Garcia’s argument that the district court did not
provide sufficient grounds to support an upward departure because the record
shows that the district court instead imposed a variance.

                                          2                                     17-10231