United States v. Hector Farias-Alvarez

535 F. App'x 636
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 1, 2013
Docket12-30294
StatusUnpublished

This text of 535 F. App'x 636 (United States v. Hector Farias-Alvarez) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Hector Farias-Alvarez, 535 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Farias-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Farias-Alvarez contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior assault conviction under section 9A.36.021(l)(c) of the Revised Code of Washington. The district court did not err when it applied the enhancement. See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia, 413 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that a conviction under section 9A.36.021(1) is categorically a “crime of violence” under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)); see also United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir.2009) (court’s “inquiry is complete” if offense is categorically a crime of violence).

Farias-Alvarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to sentence him individually and failing to address his non-frivolous requests for sentencing relief. We review for harmless error. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam). The district court did not err because, before imposing the sentence, it considered Farias-Alvarez’s history and characteristics and his arguments for a lower sentence based on cultural assimilation and the need to avoid sentencing disparities.

Farias-Alvarez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, his history and characteristics, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparity with similarly situated illegal aliens. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Farias-Alvarez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id.

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

Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Octavio Hermoso-Garcia
413 F.3d 1085 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Grajeda
581 F.3d 1186 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Munoz-Camarena
631 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
535 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hector-farias-alvarez-ca9-2013.