Court Opinion

ID: 2644226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-26 21:06:20.267423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:58.025202
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 26 2013

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 11-50546

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04288-WQH

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JUAN MOLINA-CRUZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 19, 2013**

Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       Juan Molina-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a

deported alien found in the United States, 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).
      Molina-Cruz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) relying

on an improper sentencing factor and failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, (ii) failing to consider his mitigating arguments, and

(iii) failing to explain the need for the sentence imposed. We review for plain

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered

the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Molina-Cruz’s mitigating arguments,

did not consider any improper sentencing factors, and adequately explained the

sentence imposed. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th

Cir. 2008).

      Molina-Cruz also contends that the district court erred by not awarding him

a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Molina-Cruz did not

qualify for this reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2; United States v.

Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2004).

      Molina-Cruz further contends that the procedural errors rendered his

sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion

in imposing Molina-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

                                          2                                      11-50546
(2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                   11-50546