Court Opinion

ID: 2648133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-03 21:02:59.415643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:47.070201
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 03 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10145

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00101-CW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR RODOLFO HERNANDEZ
FLORES, a.k.a. Rudolfo Hernandez
Florez, a.k.a. Uriel Perez Orosco, a.k.a.
Ruben Lopez Orozco, a.k.a. Juan
Hernandez Ramirez, a.k.a. Juan Rodolfo
Ramirez, a.k.a. Filiberto Villegas-Salgado,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                      Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 17, 2013**

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

       Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment

          *
             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).
and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his

requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to

adequately explain the sentence. 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 adequately considered the section 3553(a)

sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores’s arguments for a variance and

departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      We do not consider Hernandez Flores’s argument that the district court

failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines

range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the

first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100,

1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     13-10145