Court Opinion

ID: 9374261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 18:01:20.657561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.120625
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-50243

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                3:20-cr-02034-LAB-1
 v.

JOSE ANTONIO DELEON-JUAREZ,                     MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Deleon-Juarez challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as

      *
             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).
necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

      Jose Deleon-Juarez claims for the first time on appeal that the government

breached the plea agreement. Deleon-Juarez and the government dispute whether

Deleon-Juarez waived his right to challenge the government’s alleged breach on

appeal, and whether the government’s conduct constituted a breach.

      Even assuming no waiver, Deleon-Juarez has not shown that any alleged

breach amounted to plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 718 F.3d

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 2013). “Relief for plain error is available if there has been (1)

error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected substantial rights; and (4) that seriously

affected     the   fairness,   integrity,   or   public   reputation   of   the   judicial

proceedings.” United States v. Cannel, 517 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2008). To

conclude that a defendant’s substantial rights were affected, “there must be a

reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the sentencing.” United

States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 972 (9th Cir. 2012) (simplified).

      At sentencing, the district court focused on Deleon-Juarez’s prior convictions

for immigration offenses and his failure to be deterred by previous sentences. The

district court expressly rejected the 51-month sentence requested by the government

as insufficient to deter Deleon-Juarez. Under these circumstances, there is no

                                             2
reasonable probability that the alleged breach affected the court’s sentencing

determination. See Gonzalez-Aguilar, 718 F.3d at 1188–89.

      The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                       3