Court Opinion

ID: 2650890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-25 01:02:27.221395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:03.164350
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 24 2014

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

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10530

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00229-JGZ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
WALTER VICENTE-GONZALEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Warren W. Eginton, District Judge, Presiding**

                             Submitted January 21, 2014***

Before:         CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Walter Vicente-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry after

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The Honorable Warren W. Eginton, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

      Vicente-Gonzalez contends that his plea was not entered knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily because he did not understand the nature and range of

possible sentences. We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo. See United

States v. Gaither, 245 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001). The record reflects that

although Vicente-Gonzalez disliked the range of possible sentences he was facing,

his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

      Vicente-Gonzalez also contends that the district court should have departed

downward to account for his cultural assimilation. Our review of departures is

limited to determining whether the district court imposed a substantively

reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th

Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 76 (2013). The sentence is substantively

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

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     12-10530