Court Opinion

ID: 3162280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-14 21:01:06.52863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:19.625931
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     DEC 14 2015
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-50109

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03410-BEN

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS HIDALGO-VILLANUEVA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

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

                            Submitted December 9, 2015**

Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

         Jose Luis Hidalgo-Villanueva appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 13-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.

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).
      Hidalgo-Villanueva contends that the government breached the parties’ plea

agreement at the sentencing hearing by implicitly suggesting that it did not support

the stipulated four-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We reject

this argument because the record reflects that, in its sentencing summary chart and

at the sentencing hearing, the government stood by its recommendation that

Hidalgo-Villanueva receive the stipulated fast-track departure. Accordingly,

Hidalgo-Villanueva received the benefit of his bargain and “the presentation of a

united front to the court.” United States v. Alcala-Sanchez, 666 F.3d 571, 575 (9th

Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).

      Hidalgo-Villanueva next contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the court’s denial of the

fast-track departure. We disagree. The within-Guidelines sentence is

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

the totality of the circumstances, including Hidalgo-Villanueva’s immigration

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                   15-50109