Court Opinion

ID: 3214976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-20 21:01:08.033068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:29.015485
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUN 20 2016
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-50406

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01336-BEN

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERMINIO HERNANDEZ-RAUDA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                     Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before:        BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

         Erminio Hernandez-Rauda appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Hernandez-Rauda contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider his mitigating arguments and 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 Hernandez-Rauda’s arguments and

the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence.

See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      Hernandez-Rauda next contends that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Hernandez-Rauda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section

3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez-Rauda’s

immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see

also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 135 S. Ct. 2848 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need

for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors and “required a sentence at least

equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re-entry sentence”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                  15-50406