Court Opinion

ID: 3004881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-25 21:01:02.513131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:08.452942
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2015
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         Nos. 14-10470
                                                        14-10471
              Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                   D.C. Nos. 4:07-cr-00056-RCC
    v.                                                       4:13-cr-02151-RCC

 JOSE ESTEBAN QUINTERO-SANCHEZ,                    MEMORANDUM*
 a.k.a. Jose Esteban Quintero, a.k.a. Jose
 Quintero-Sanchez,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                      Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 21, 2015**

Before:        REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

         In these consolidated appeals, Jose Esteban Quintero-Sanchez appeals from

the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed

following his jury-trial conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
         **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1326, and the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Quintero-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider and discuss his sentencing arguments and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record

reflects that the district court considered Quintero-Sanchez’s arguments and the

applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      Quintero-Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the district court allegedly focused on a stale criminal

conviction and failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district court did

not abuse its discretion in imposing Quintero-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence

is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Quintero-Sanchez’s criminal and

immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                          14-10470 & 14-10471