Court Opinion

ID: 2644230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-26 21:06:20.877566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:59.649799
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                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 26 2013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. 12-10642

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00408-FJM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JESUS VENEGAS-LARES,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 19, 2013**

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

       Jesus Venegas-Lares appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 77-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.

          *
             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).
      Venegas-Lares contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to address his argument that he was entitled to a variance because his prior felony

conviction that resulted in a 16-level sentencing enhancement was different in kind

and seriousness from other crimes of violence that trigger the same enhancement.

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

entertained Venegas-Lares’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence.

See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

      Venegas-Lares also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the district court should have granted him a cultural assimilation departure

and varied downward to avoid creating a unwarranted sentencing disparity between

him and defendants with more violent and dangerous prior felony convictions. Our

review of a district court’s exercise of discretion to depart or vary on the basis of

cultural assimilation is limited to determining whether the court imposed a

substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d
1001, 1005-08 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 2013 WL 1841816 (U.S. Oct. 7,

2013). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Venegas-Lares’s

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

bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

                                           2                                     12-10642
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Venegas-Lares’s extensive criminal history, the need to afford adequate deterrence,

and to protect the public. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8 (“[A cultural

assimilation] departure should be considered only . . . [where it] is not likely to

increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3                                     12-10642