United States v. Flores
This text of 551 F. App'x 395 (United States v. Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported 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.
Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to adequately explain the sentence. 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 adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores’s arguments for a variance and departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
We do not consider Hernandez Flores’s argument that the district court failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n. 9 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
551 F. App'x 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-flores-ca9-2014.