Court Opinion

ID: 2669683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-11 20:36:31.320281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.212184
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 11 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10333

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00326-SMM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
EDEN VALDEZ-ANGULO, a.k.a. Eden
Valdez Angulo, a.k.a. Miguel Valdez-
Angulo,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                   Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted April 7, 2014**

Before:        TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       Eden Valdez-Angulo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-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

          *
             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.

      Valdez-Angulo first contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the imposition of two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)

turned solely on the “happenstance” of the timing of his discovery by immigration

officials. Relying on United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.

2009), Valdez-Angulo also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable in light of his limited roles in his prior convictions, one of which

resulted in a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdez-Angulo’s

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Unlike the sentence

in Amezcua-Vasquez, Valdez-Angulo’s below-Guidelines sentence properly

reflects the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Valdez-Angulo’s criminal and immigration history. See

id.

      Finally, Valdez-Angulo contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), has been undermined and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

unconstitutional. As Valdez-Angulo concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   13-10333