Court Opinion

ID: 3190874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-01 20:01:01.355562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:06.789876
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 01 2016

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10083

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00276-RCC-
                                                 BGM-1
 v.

SAMUEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-                        MEMORANDUM*
CASTRO, a.k.a. Samuel Hernandez-
Castro,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                             Submitted March 30, 2016**

Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

      Samuel Hernandez-Castro appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-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 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).
      Hernandez-Castro contends that the district court procedurally erred at

sentencing by not addressing his argument in mitigation and failing to explain the

reasons for his sentence. Because Hernandez-Castro did not object on these

grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,

608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-

62 (9th Cir. 2008).

      The record shows that the district court listened to defense counsel’s

mitigation argument as well as Hernandez-Castro’s own statement regarding his

prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court calculated the Sentencing

Guidelines range and imposed a sentence at the lower end of that range.

Hernandez-Castro offers no evidence or argument that there is a reasonable

probability that the sentence would have been lower if the court had explicitly

addressed his mitigation argument and provided more explanation for the sentence.

Thus, Hernandez-Castro has not shown that his substantial rights were affected,

and so he has not met the plain error test. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2