United States v. Jorge Soto-Castelo

585 F. App'x 937
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 10, 2014
Docket13-10427
StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 937 (United States v. Jorge Soto-Castelo) 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. Jorge Soto-Castelo, 585 F. App'x 937 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Soto-Castelo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-level sentencing enhancement and the 36-month term of supervised release imposed for his illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.

Conviction under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 453.337 qualifies as a conviction for a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B). United States v. Benitez-Perez, 367 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the district court correctly imposed a 12-level sentencing enhancement based on Soto-Castelo’s prior conviction under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 453.337.

The district court acted within its discretion to impose a 36-month term of supervised release. The district court was authorized to impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). Supervised release is appropriate when “it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” US SG § 5D 1.1(c) cmt. 5. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the 36-month term of supervised release is reasonable in light of the district court’s explanation that Soto-Castelo had been previously deported and that this was Soto-Castelo’s second prosecution for re-entry after a deportation. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.2012).

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

United States v. David Benitez-Perez
367 F.3d 1200 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Jorge Valdavinos-Torres
704 F.3d 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 F. App'x 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jorge-soto-castelo-ca9-2014.