Court Opinion

ID: 2655072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-27 21:07:50.612101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:56.605875
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 27 2014

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

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10288

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01666-NVW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JUAN JIMENEZ-ALBERTO, a.k.a. Juan
Jimenez,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                     Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding**

                            Submitted February 18, 2014***

Before:         ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Juan Jimenez-Alberto appeals from the district court’s judgment and

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

       **    The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
challenges the 57-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

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

      Jimenez-Alberto contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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 considered the section 3553(a)

factors before imposing the sentence. To the extent Jimenez-Alberto also contends

that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the

sentence, the record does not support this contention.

      Jimenez-Alberto further contends that the district court should have granted

a cultural assimilation departure and that this error, coupled with the court’s failure

to consider the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, resulted in an unreasonable

sentence. Our review of a district court’s exercise of discretion to depart or vary

from the Guidelines on the basis of cultural assimilation 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 district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jimenez-

Alberto’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

                                           2                                      13-10288
sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light

of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Jimenez-Alberto’s extensive criminal history. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                    13-10288