United States v. Mario Valenzuela-Morales

556 F. App'x 660

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2014
• Docket: 13-10157
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10157

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01961-GMS

v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO VALENZUELA-MORALES, a.k.a. Mario Higuera-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Martin Valenzuela Verdugo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Karen E. Schreier, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 18, 2014***

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Mario Valenzuela-Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). challenges the 46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised

release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Valenzuela-Morales contends that the district court erred by failing to

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his mitigation arguments

and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the custodial sentence and

supervised-release term. 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 properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, adequately

addressed Valenzuela-Morales’s mitigation arguments, and provided sufficient

reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s reasoning for imposing

the supervised-release term is apparent from the record. See id. at 992

(“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the

record as a whole.”).

Valenzuela-Morales also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Valenzuela-Morales’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

2 13-10157 The custodial sentence and supervised-release term are substantively reasonable in

light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Valenzuela-Morales’s criminal and immigration history. See id.;

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.

Finally, Valenzuela-Morales contends that the indictment was defective

because it did not allege his predicate conviction. Our case law forecloses this

contention. See United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.

2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-10157