Court Opinion

ID: 9926462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 20:01:04.089331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.721734
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-470
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:22-cr-00042-MKD-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RAFAEL MACHUCA-PRECIADO,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                    Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Rafael Machuca-Preciado appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 18-month term of imprisonment and 3-year term of supervised

release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the

United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Machuca-Preciado contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to review or consider the support letters that Machuca-Preciado submitted

to demonstrate his family ties in the United States. We review for plain error, see

United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and

conclude there is none. The court’s remarks at sentencing suggest that it reviewed

the letters and found that they did not support Machuca-Preciado’s representations

of himself as a father. However, even assuming the court did not review the

letters, Machuca-Preciado has not shown any effect on his substantial rights. See

United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). The record reflects

that the district court considered Machuca-Preciado’s arguments regarding his

family ties but believed that a within-Guidelines sentence was nevertheless

warranted in light of Machuca-Preciado’s significant immigration history, his

failure to be deterred by a prior sentence for illegal reentry, his repeated violations

of a restraining order, and his strong incentives to return to the United States.

Thus, Machuca-Preciado has not shown a reasonable probability that he would

have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 762.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     23-470