United States v. Leonel Perez

586 F. App'x 316

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 2, 2014
• Docket: 13-50519
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant Leonel Avila-Perez (“Avila-Perez”) appeals the district court’s rejection of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) sentence bargain. He also appeals his 36-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and now affirm.

1. Because the district court provided specific reasons, rooted in the circumstances of this case, for rejecting the sentence bargain, it did not abuse its discretion. See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 711-12 (9th Cir.2007). The district court did not plainly err in its statements made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5)(B), and Avila-Perez fails to show that any error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5)(C) affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2010).

2. Avila-Perez waived his fact-bound objection to the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d), to which he agreed during sentencing. See United States v. Hernandez-Ramirez, 254 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir.2001). The district court sufficiently explained the below-Guidelines-range sentence it imposed. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2013). Assuming plain error, Avila-Perez fails to show the Government’s silence at sentencing affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 552-53 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

*** xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.