United States v. Juan Heredia-Pantaleon

677 F. App'x 395
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2017
Docket15-50532
StatusUnpublished

This text of 677 F. App'x 395 (United States v. Juan Heredia-Pantaleon) 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. Juan Heredia-Pantaleon, 677 F. App'x 395 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Heredia-Pantaleon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence and 3-year term of supervised release 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.

Heredia-Pantaleon contends that the government breached the parties’ plea agreement at the sentencing hearing by implicitly suggesting that it did not support the stipulated two-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. This claim fails because the record reflects that, in its sentencing summary chart and at the sentencing hearing, the government stood by its recommendation that Heredia-Pan-taleon receive the stipulated fast-track departure. The challenged statements were offered in response to Heredia-Pantaleon’s request for additional downward departures, which the plea agreement permitted the government to oppose. See United States v. Moschella, 727 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2013) (no breach where “the plea *396 agreement specifically authorized the government’s arguments”).

Heredia-Pantaleon next contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing its rejection of the fast-track departure on its desire to achieve a particular Guidelines range. This argument is belied by the record, which reflects that the court followed the proper sentencing procedure. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2015).

Heredia-Pantaleon finally contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s denial of his requests for fast-track and criminal-history departures and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The custodial sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Heredia-Pantaleon’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Moreover, the supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Jorge Valdavinos-Torres
704 F.3d 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Ronald Moschella
727 F.3d 888 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Guadalupe Rosales-Gonzales
801 F.3d 1177 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 F. App'x 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-juan-heredia-pantaleon-ca9-2017.