Court Opinion

ID: 2646832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-20 01:01:19.441053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:22.899533
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 19 2013

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10606

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00400-CKJ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JAIME ALARCON-HERNANDEZ, a.k.a.
Jaime Alarcon,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 17, 2013**

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

       Jaime Alarcon-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction

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

      Alarcon-Hernandez contends that the district court erred by determining that

his prior conviction for attempted second-degree sexual assault constitutes an

aggravated-felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) that bars him from

eligibility for a departure under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.7. Even if the district

court erred in its aggravated-felony determination, it understood that it had the

discretion to sentence Alarcon-Hernandez outside of the advisory Guidelines range

but declined to do so in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

Alarcon-Hernandez does not contend that the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence, nor would such a contention be availing on this record.

Thus, we identify no basis for reversing. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz,

692 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]ny erroneous application of [a] departure

would be harmless so long as the sentence actually imposed was substantively

reasonable.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     12-10606